Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee Third Reading 
Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21481] 
Tuesday 14 June 2005 
( 
continued on Thursday 16 June 2005 
) 
Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Part 1Substantive amendments to Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and consequential amendments  ( 
continued 
)  
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 Last night at about 3 minutes to 12 we started this debate and I just want to recap on it for the benefit of members. There are two amendments in my name and some members I think specifically speaking for the National Party have indicated that they would oppose those amendments—that is the indication I got. I want to point out to the National members and to the Committee that those amendments actually clarify the intention that the Health Committee had. If the amendments are not supported some I think rather bizarre consequences will take place. I am not sure the National members fully appreciate that and I would like to run past them again what this issue is about. 
The first amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 377 in my name deals with the fact that this bill is intended to extend the application of customs and excise powers to investigations under the new importation offences involving precursor substances such as ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. A number of other substances are also covered by the proposed new importation and exportation offences in the bill. If we do not pass the amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 377 to rectify the situation that the bill at the moment evidences then the Customs Service will not be able to deal with illicit drug manufacturers who have shown an ability to exploit legal loopholes and change their modus operandi. So I want the National members to seriously consider that if they do not support that amendment they will restrict the powers of the Customs Service to deal with serious drugs. I hardly think that that is what National intends but if it does not support the amendment it will have to stand accused of doing that. 
The second amendment in my name is intended to ensure that the presumption of supply for a drug could be amended by Order in Council and that the associated affirmative resolution procedure could be amended by Parliament. After hearing submissions the Regulations Review Committee was concerned about the extension of this procedure not involving the full scrutiny of Parliament. The Health Committee—which did excellent work on this bill and I thank the members for that—has recommended the following: “We recommend that the ability to amend the presumption of supply level for a controlled drug by Order in Council as proposed in the bill be limited to two circumstances (clause 5). The first is where the classification of the controlled drug is also being changed. We agree that changing this level in tandem with a classification or reclassification would prevent anomalies such as occurred with methamphetamine where the drug was given a Class A classification by Order in Council but the associated presumption of supply change required this bill.” So we had to go through two procedures and delay it. 
I heard members of the National Party say last night that it would take only 12 months. We are talking about situations where young people are actually dying for goodness sake! Coroners are urging Parliament to take action— 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: On what? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: On the misuse of drugs on the importation of precursors and all sorts of issues surrounding that. The solvent issue is one that I put forward and the committee has kicked it for touch so I will have to go through another process on it. I suggest to members that the bill as drafted does not reflect the recommendation of the select committee. I urge members to think about this: the select committee has recommended something the bill as drafted does not reflect that properly and the commentary when reporting back the bill to the House states that the amendment to clause 5(2) in my name is necessary to rectify the situation. If we do not do that we will have a problem in terms of getting changes to the default supply amount of controlled drugs such as reducing methamphetamine from 56 grams to 5 grams and so. We will have to go through two elongated procedures in order to achieve that. 
I recommend these amendments to the Committee because I am certain they actually reflect what the select committee itself wanted. We have to change the bill in order to bring that about. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you Madam Chairperson for the opportunity to speak on Part 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3). I think it is interesting—and somewhat rich—for the Hon Jim Anderton at this late stage to be asking for the National Party to make changes to its position after he belatedly came into the debate with a poorly prepared Supplementary Order Paper. After all the situation of party pills and the legislation for benzylpiperazine and other such substances have been known about for 9 or 10 years. 
The firm view of all the advisers was that they are at quite a different level from the serious substances such as methamphetamine and their precursors and other class A and class B controlled drugs. The firm view was that the less concerning substances that are getting so much publicity at present need their own well-considered stand-alone bill. Indeed I believe that the select committee was of the view that that would be the optimal situation but instead it has reached a compromise with the Hon Jim Anderton where this less considered situation has been tacked on to the end of the bill. Because of that National is uncomfortable with supporting it. 
Nevertheless I hopefully will get the opportunity to talk about the details with the Hon Jim Anderton to see whether we can come to an arrangement. There is no doubt that National supports the substance of the original intention of this bill which was to look at practical ways to ensure there would be better enforcement powers in New Zealand to stop the proliferation of class A and class B controlled drugs. There is absolutely no doubt that the situation has grown seriously over the last 4 or 5 years. We only have to look at substances like P where we have had the police and the Institute of Environmental Science and Research saying that back in 1999 something like four or five clan-labs had been raided by the police. This has proliferated up into the order of 240 which reflects the enormous expansion of these illicit controlled drugs in New Zealand. 
Certainly we believe that the affirmative resolution procedure which was reluctantly agreed upon by the select committee back in 2001 when the first amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act came through is a mechanism that should be used with great caution. The Regulations Review Committee has been absolutely clear about the need for this affirmative resolution procedure to be used very very carefully. Because after all this gets to the heart of what democracy is about and to the heart of what parliamentary procedures are about—where there is time to duly consider legislation time for submitters to have their views heard by the select committees and reported back on and then for a bill to be adequately considered in the normal democratic way through our Parliament. 
It seems a great worry to me that the Hon Jim Anderton wants to bypass this procedure which should have limited scope in a Parliament such as ours and where the Regulations Review Committee was crystal-clear that it should not be used other than in exceptional circumstances. I do hope the Minister will indeed explain to the Parliament exactly where he stands. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 First of all I want to say that I am standing in for Barbara Stewart on this matter and to indicate that New Zealand First is pleased to support this part of the bill. Before I go on I also want to indicate our support for the Supplementary Order Papers that have been put before the House by the Hon Mr Anderton. We certainly support the arguments that he has put up to substantiate the need for Supplementary Order Paper 377. 
We particularly support the proposed section 12AC which is to be inserted into the Misuse of Drugs Act by clause 11 in Part 1 of the bill where legislation that relates to precursor substances such as ephedrine and pseudoephedrine is strengthened. Both are key substances used in the manufacture of methamphetamine. We understand there is currently no offence relating to the import or export of precursors to the manufacture of methamphetamine. In fact the legislation has not kept up with the trends of the day so to speak. Given the adverse impact that this whole issue has not only in this country but indeed the world it needed to be responded to quickly and we believe that this bill does that. 
The lagging of the required legislation has meant that our law enforcement agencies particularly the Customs Service and the police have been hamstrung under the present law. It has also meant that the lesser charge of possession is the only charge that can be made in a whole lot of instances and as we know the penalties for possession are not as great as the penalties a person would face if charged with other matters related to this drug. In addition it is difficult to make such a charge stick where those substances are sent through the post which has become a regular mode of transfer from one country to another. In that situation we need to ask who is actually in possession. That loophole needs to be closed and I believe that this bill will do that. 
Parliament has a duty to support both the police and the Customs Service in their fight against the use of illicit drugs. This bill will certainly do that particularly in the area of search and seizure requirements and the amendments to that part of the Act are certainly appropriate. 
New Zealand First also supports clause 14 in this part of the bill which shifts the onus of proof for possessing a needle or syringe so that it lies with the prosecution. We all know the importance of the use of needles and syringes and the dangers that second-hand use can cause particularly with reference to the transmission of HIV and related diseases. So I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to say that we support this part of the bill. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 Part 1 of this bill relates to substantive amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and National supports this part. This was the original bill that came to the Health Committee after the first reading and it deals with the issue of precursor substances for the manufacture of P methamphetamine. 
When I was at medical school we had to study some drugs that were just given to us and ephedrine was one of the drugs pulled out for me to study. So I did an intensive study on it and found that it had very little use apart from the fact that it dried up one’s nose when one had a cold. At that time we did not realise that it would be used as a precursor for the very dangerous party drug P which has been responsible for a huge amount of harm in this country. That harm has come in the form of addiction and we have seen many a TV programme on people who engage in theft to try to get the money to buy this drug and fuel their habit. Methamphetamine laboratories have been found throughout New Zealand. A large laboratory was found and destroyed in my electorate Marlborough 2 years ago. The people who engaged in that activity are now suffering the consequences because P was able to be expeditiously scheduled under the Misuse of Drugs Act. 
That process was set up by Wyatt Creech and progressed by the Labour Government when it came to office in 1999. It allowed us to act very rapidly to put P methamphetamine on to a schedule which meant that those who were found to be producing that drug could then suffer the most severe consequences in respect of penalties and time in prison. Then we found that there was no restriction on importing the precursor substances. As chemists did more to protect themselves against theft of cold remedies that had ephedrine and pseudoephedrine in them people were found at the border with suitcases and suitcases of those drugs. They were bringing them across the border in order to produce methamphetamine and there was nothing to stop them. 
There was debate within the Health Committee about whether this bill should be used to schedule something like precursor substances but everybody agreed that we should do so because we should be helping the police and the border control authorities to try to improve the situation regarding this drug. But the extension of that form of lawmaking has been of concern to the Regulations Review Committee which said that significant matters of policy and principle should always be dealt with in the primary legislation that comes to this House and that process has stood us in good stead for most of the time that this Parliament has been sitting. The process means all members of Parliament look at a law and examine a bill and the bill is subject to the select committee process where the public have the right to make submissions. Then we bring it back to the House and in the Committee stage we once again see whether we have got it right and try to make good legislation that will achieve the desired effect. So the Regulations Review Committee said that that was what we should do. 
We did make an exception to that with the expeditious scheduling of controlled drugs because everyone here felt that the time it takes to get legislation through the House was too long for things like Ecstasy Fantasy or P plus now the precursor substances. But when it comes to using that process for something that will need regulation—that is benzylpiperazine a drug that the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs has said is not of high risk of harm—National members have concerns. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise to speak in the Committee stage on Part 1 of this bill and I want to signal now that I have tabled an amendment and will be seeking support from the Committee for it. It is to do with the Order in Council provisions and a recent concern I have about them. 
It is important to state upfront that the Regulations Review Committee information to the Health Committee on the use of Order in Council provisions was very cautious. We know that that is often its approach to this sort of provision. United Future supports the use of Order in Council provisions within this bill where it allows us to respond with urgency to a situation that may develop. When a product comes on the market or the drug scene in New Zealand changes in some circumstance the police want the Government to be able to respond quickly and provide them with the legal framework they need to be able to act. There was some evidence that the methamphetamine situation might not have got away on us quite as quickly as it did if we had been able to respond a little more quickly to that situation historically. We do not want to stifle that opportunity. 
However the problem that has developed with the Order in Council provisions is that as the Act has been designed they can be used in any direction. When one talks about recategorising a drug downwards—softening the impact of the legislation—by Order in Council and that is not born out of a crisis of any kind but out of a policy desire then I think the full scrutiny of Parliament including the public submission process should be considered. 
The concern that we have and that my amendment addresses is in section 4(1B)(b) in clause 5. I will read what it presently states: “(b) the Order in Council increases”—and I think that was the word that some of us had perhaps misunderstood—“the amount level or quantity at and over which the controlled drug is presumed to be for supply.” Well I think some of us read that as meaning it was a tightening measure as we have with methamphetamine. What we are trying to address in this part is that the amount one can have in order to be considered as having a drug for supply was set at too high a level and we are trying to track it backwards so that one can have a smaller amount in one’s possession and be considered to be supplying it. That is extremely appropriate. 
What does the wording here mean when one understands what all the other substances in new schedule 5 of the principal Act are—which is what we are talking about here? Let me give members a hypothetical situation. By Order in Council we could decide to increase the amount of cannabis at which one is considered to have it for supply—I think it is something like 100 cigarettes—to such a level that proving supply would be a complete nonsense. The police would have a huge amount of trouble proving it. My concern is that we could do that by Order in Council with paragraph (b) in existence. As far as I am concerned and United Future is concerned the people we most want to see the law able to ping is those who are supplying our young people. The law must be very clear as to the point at which somebody is considered to have a drug for supply and we must be able to identify those people very very clearly. If we are able by Order in Council to put the amount up then I think a very dangerous situation could develop around that schedule. 
So my amendment removes paragraph (b)—it just deletes it—and I would encourage the Committee to support it. I just remind members that the Health Committee members did agree that the Order in Council must be used only in response to a crisis that the police bring to our attention. It should never be used to implement a policy to liberalise drug law. That was not actually a danger until Supplementary Order Paper 298 was introduced which is now Part 3 of the bill. By introducing Part 3 we have created the opportunity for drugs that are now classified as C grade to be dropped down into a new category. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 It has been my experience in this Parliament that one can often get a better picture of legislation and what is intended if one comes to it completely fresh and has not been part of the process. I am happy to say that I have not been part of the process so it was interesting to sit down this morning and freshly read the commentary back from the select committee to read what the issues are and then to make some determination about where I think I certainly would want to stand and hopefully my party would want to stand. 
What struck me very quickly with this was that although the National Party strongly supports the original Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) the party has some very serious concerns about how far one extends the regulatory process to allow the inclusion on the list of banned substances. I can tell members of this House having been here for 18 years that I have had very strong views on something as an initial instinct and then after having been through a very elongated select committee process with public submissions and hearing from a number of officials and not just the one official who may have been getting in one’s ear from one department that the solution has been not quite as simple as it first looked; what finally emerges from the parliamentary process might look quite different and in many cases one’s original instincts have been wrong. 
For that reason I would very very much not like to support a regime that looks about to be put in place here especially with Jim Anderton’s Supplementary Order Paper that will allow a Minister through Order in Council to start adding things to controlled lists and to banned substances lists just at a whim. 
I accept that there is some awful stuff out there. Nobody could want anything that P stands for to be in any way able to be sold including all the precursors—the ingredients that are used to make P. They have all got to be somehow controlled to stop the dreadful process going on. But I have to say that one can soon slip off the straight and narrow with that thinking because there are some party pills and herbal pills around and so on. Now that sounds awful—party pills and things that make people feel better or give them a slight high. But in many cases a lot of those things do not do any more damage than a couple of glasses of wine. They sound like they are addictive and that they are like heroin or cocaine but in fact they are not as serious as that. 
So one immediately comes to a conclusion that there is a whole continuum from things that are almost no damage at all. Maybe they do not do much but the kids think they make them feel good. I remember at Matamata College one of the highs we used to get was putting an Aspro into a glass of Coca Cola and drinking it. That was supposed to give one a high. Well we all pretended we got high but I understand that it makes no difference whatsoever. At the other extreme there are things like the heroins and the cocaines that one wants to ban. 
I see the Regulations Review Committee making a very very good series of recommendations here. We must not give to a particular Minister—not just this Minister but any other Minister—some draconian powers to start getting in and banning stuff that is probably no more insidious or no more addictive than maybe alcohol or tobacco. We should not be allowing the bureaucrats to develop a wish list at a whim and be able to bang that through some form of a regulatory process without the proper scrutiny. 
I think ACT said the right words in its minority report. It said we need a proper legislative process to safeguard against some form of ad hoc hysteria. ACT’s minority report stated: “Regulations Review Committee warnings regarding amendment to primary legislation by Order in Council subject to affirmative resolution have been largely ignored.” I think that is right when I look back at the points that the National Party included in its minority report. It stated: “We are mindful of the Regulations Review Committee’s statement that—the affirmative resolution procedure should not proliferate the affirmative resolution procedure should only be used in limited and exceptional circumstances any extension to the affirmative resolution procedure on the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 should only be permitted where it is: a necessary adjustment to altering the schedules of controlled drugs; essential in order to achieve the purpose of the Act in dealing with the serious risk of emerging drug threats.” 
I have to tell the Minister that I am sure that when a new drug called “Q” arrives on the scene—the next one on from P whenever it arrives— 
Hon Member 
: It is here already. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Well if it is here already and “Q” is known to be a really serious addictive damaging drug like P is I am sure this Parliament would want to almost—no I think it would be unanimously—race to pass some legislation but again with a proper process of consideration so that we did not suddenly ban “Q”. It is for that reason that the National Party will be voting against this. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 I just want to make a short intervention because it is good to put the facts in the way of anybody’s ignorance or prejudice. Mr Williamson says he comes to Parliament fresh to the issue. That actually that he does not know anything about it. To get up and say that as though there is an important point he is making is completely erroneous. The affirmative resolution procedure—[ 
Interruption 
] If Mr Williamson wants to deal with the drug issue we will deal with it. This issue is not a party political issue. It is a serious issue that affects the lives and the future of a whole pile of young New Zealanders and here we have Mr Williamson making a few cheap political points. 
 I point out—[ 
Interruption 
] Yes he is still shouting them out. I point out that the affirmative resolution procedure is not a draconian procedure. It is a perfectly reasonable system for Parliament to use. Actually it was one of National’s own members Wyatt Creech who started the process in the first place and I support it. I have discussed the matter with the Clerk of the House to make sure that this process is perfectly reasonable to use. Here is the process and how draconian is this? The Cabinet of New Zealand has to consider an issue that it wants to go to the issuing of Order in Council. The Cabinet is not an outfit of cowboys who have just turned up on the night. Cabinet Ministers were elected to Parliament and then they were elected to Cabinet. Cabinet considers whether the procedure goes to the issuing of an Order in Council. Mr Williamson describes that as some kind of whim of the Minister but it is not. It is the collective decision of Cabinet. The procedure goes to the issuing of an Order in Council and the Governor-General signs it on the advice of Ministers. 
Then what happens? Does the Order in Council automatically become law? No it does not. It goes to the select committee. Did Mr Williamson know that? 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Yes. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Oh he did know that. But he says it is just a whim of the Minister and the select committee does not have anything to do with it. Well it has. The matter goes to the select committee for 28 days and the select committee has to make a recommendation to Parliament—not to Mr Anderton or to any other Minister but to Parliament. Who makes the decision on the recommendation from the Order in Council? Parliament does. So to Mr Williamson Parliament is some kind of whim of the Minister. It may be under a National Government but it is not under this one. 
Parliament decides this matter and the process is determined by the fact that we have to be timely democratic and relevant. How relevant is timeliness for Parliament? Last night we heard that 12 months should be all right to consider some of this stuff—that is what we heard last night. I think there may be a bit of a change in attitude on that but 12 months was mentioned and sometimes 2 or 3 years. It took us about as long as that to reclassify methamphetamine. Is that dangerous enough for someone? It took about 3 years to do that. Is that adequate? No it is not. Should there be a better process than that which makes Parliament relevant? There surely should be. Is there now? Yes. Does most of the Parliament support it? Yes. Does Mr Williamson support it? No. That does not make any difference I do not think. I think that the rest of Parliament is right and Mr Williamson is wrong. Before Mr Williamson comes down to this House and gives us the benefit of his fresh ideas he should inform himself about the process. 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 I thought the contribution from the Associate Minister of Health was most unhelpful. If anybody is attempting to score political points on this issue it was quite clear from that last contribution that the Minister was attempting to score political points. He has to look at himself in terms of the amount of hysteria he has created over this issue by making such contributions. Mr Williamson in undertaking a huge amount of constituency work in his electorate sees at the front line the sort of problem that these drugs create. I think his contribution was very well-thought-out and raised some pretty important questions that the Minister did not deal seriously with in his contribution. 
Many of the issues that come to Parliament are incredibly serious but if we have a Minister who reacts to polls public hysteria or a lack of evidence about particular drugs a whole bunch of things that have a normal commonplace use will be banned. Imagine if the Government decided to do a poll on the use of hairspray or some nail polish removers! We get the impression from this Government that if a poll indicated that something was a point of huge concern to the public a Minister would make a change and ban a whole group of products for which there was no evidence of harm. We are saying that knee-jerk reactions can be dangerous. Although the Minister in the chair might have huge confidence in his colleagues around the Cabinet table that confidence is not shared by the rest of the country. We will have instances whereby Ministers for the sake of a poll or for the sake of looking like they are doing something want to ban products that have quite innocuous uses. 
It has been suggested that this measure go back to the select committee. Well we all know that the Government has the numbers on select committees. A select committee will not raise pertinent issues with or point out issues to a Minister who is hell-bent on changing the status of a particular substance. A select committee will not tell the Minister that he is nuts that he should not make those changes and that frankly there is no evidence that certain things should be banned. So the measure would come back to Parliament. Frankly no one will stand in the way of a Minister who wants to react to what he sees as an issue for the public. 
We need to make decisions on banning substances based on scientific evidence. So far when it comes to party pills we have not seen any scientific evidence. We have had a whole host of anecdotal incidents where party pills have been proved to be the problem. It is usually a mixture of substances. Sure those incidents are very concerning to any parent but the role of Parliament and the role of any Minister is to look carefully at the science the evidence and the information before making a considered decision. 
The contribution from United Future is interesting. I think many of that party’s amendments are more to do with a fear that cannabis will be legalised. I do not see that as being an issue. 
One of the things that we are seeing is a bill to raise the legal age for the purchase of liquor and I think people should consider how they will vote on it. Many members in this Parliament will vote for 18-year-olds to be able to buy party pills but then will raise the age at which people can buy alcohol. There is certainly more evidence about alcohol than there is about party pills. 
We cannot have knee-jerk reactions to those sorts of issues. We must act in a timely fashion but with evidence so that hysteria is not the basis for our making decisions about substances; otherwise we will see a whole bunch of wacky decisions being made driven by Ministers who want to react to public concerns about a particular issue that have no evidence to back them up. Yes P has been an issue but I do not think anything the Government could have done would stop it. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I just want to put a bit of reason into this debate and to point out that a step has been forgotten by the Opposition. With respect Maurice Williamson was a wonderful former Associate Minister of Health in terms of his attitude to the sensible regulation of drugs and management of drug policy and I congratulate him on that. We all need to be reasonable about the way we approach this issue. What has been forgotten is the role of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs. 
This was not the result of a decision of the Minister to put pressure on the Ministry of Health to get some evidence quickly on benzylpiperazine. The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs which is far more reasoned and scientific in its decision on any drug illicit or licit raised concerns to the Minister on this matter. Yes we on the Health Committee—and members have forgotten this— also put a justice official on the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs. We received evidence from the Ministry of Health about its concerns on benzylpiperazine and it also raised concerns about the use of benzylpiperazine in conjunction with other drugs. The ministry did categorise it as being of “low risk” in the recommendation. It was not the Minister’s recommendation that benzylpiperazine a low-risk substance needed to be monitored very very closely—not politicians to monitor it heaven forbid—but a recommendation of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs which is established in statute. The recommendation was not in response to receiving anecdotal evidence as the Opposition members said. Yes there has been a lot of hysteria about benzylpiperazine but we received the ministry’s report. It will be watching this drug very closely and we urged that in our report back to the House. 
I want to put on the record here that this is not a case of the Minister or of Cabinet going around and finding another whacky idea that they think will get a few more votes. This is an issue that we should all take terribly seriously and we should listen to the advice and the scientific evidence we received. Our problem here is what we should do about licit and illicit drugs when we have a drug schedule and a statutory framework that looks only at illicit substances. The select committee made a very wise decision to deal with a substance that we were all very concerned about rather than to tell officials to go away draft more policy consult and come back to us with a restricted substances bill. We were not prepared to take the time for that process. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I would like to take advantage in speaking to this bill. It is curious to me that we have such reticence about moving ahead with the drugs that this bill deals with—the party pills and all the rest of it. It took 7 years—7 long years—before anybody moved on methamphetamine. We let the cat out of the bag and unfortunately the police are now having to go backwards to try to deal with methamphetamine. What I do not want to see is this bill put aside not dealt with here and party pills and all the rest of it allowed to go on unregulated and unhindered. 
The fact of the matter is that we may be able to assert that these party pills on their own may not cause the kinds of damaging effects that people might ascribe to them—and I would disagree with that statement too—but the fact is that our young kids are using those pills in combination with alcohol and other drugs. We cannot isolate one aspect of it and look at just that. We have to look at the totality of the experience that young kids are putting themselves through which endangers themselves and others and of course it is hugely worrying to parents as a result. 
Members should be going to the police and speaking to them. They should see what the results of these drugs are. They will find a completely different picture from the one we find as we sit in the comfort zone of our own offices. Down on the street where these drugs are actually being abused in combination with other drugs it is a totally different story. Very close to my office in Christchurch there is one of these party pill shops. I see night after night young kids standing around there snorting inhaling and taking pills. There is always a litter of syringes and nose-cans. It is a combinational thing and it has to be attacked that way. It is crazy to imagine that we can simply turn a blind eye to this problem. 
This legislation is much needed. In the absence of anything else we need this in order to protect our kids from themselves. Kids will experiment but the problem is that they put themselves and everybody else at risk. This bill is one answer in terms of dealing with that. We can sit back and wait for all the research we want but in the meantime real damage is done to real people out there and it is time we acted proactively to deal with the scourge of party pills and other related drugs. The reality is that people taking these drugs are doing it in a way not considered in this House. That is a fact. We can sit here and debate until we are blue in the face about what should or should not be done—we could take more time do more research and all the rest of it—but it is the parents out there who look after their kids who are in trouble. Some kids come home worse for wear or have to be taken to hospital and some die. That is the fact of it. 
If people want to be reticent about passing this legislation and hold back and wait for more and more evidence all I can say is that the evidence is already in our hospitals. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: It’s Part 1 we are debating not Part 2 or 3. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Could I just say to members that a lot of members have strayed across the paths and I almost gave up trying to bring them back. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: That is exactly right. It is quite a wide-ranging debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes. Please continue Mr Alexander. 
Darren Hughes 
: It’s true that National’s position is very unclear though. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: It is very unclear. My understanding is that National members will end up actually supporting this bill. That strikes me as being strange because they want it both ways. On the one hand they want to bag the Hon Jim Anderton for putting this legislation forward but on the other hand they want to support it. They want a bob each way. That is actually quite disingenuous because it says they want to bag the intention of the bill but they do not want the public to go against them and ask why they have not helped. 
The fact of the matter is that there is a huge public out there that wants something done. All we have to do is pick up the newspapers and read the letters that come in. They talk of doing something about the shops that sell such stuff; and it is not just what they sell—it is the activities that are taking place outside these places of purchase. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I am quite pleased to take part in this debate. I was going to confine my comments strictly to Part 1 but I feel the need to rebut some of the comments made by previous speakers so I apologise if I stray a little from Part 1. The first thing I want to address is the comment made by Mr Williamson who talked about the provision of the affirmative resolution procedure for classifying drugs under the new schedule. I think the member misunderstands the process. He seems to think that it is a simple Order in Council that will be done by ministerial whim. It is the same mistake that Judy Turner made which led to her particularly distasteful amendment previously. 
The fact is that this is not a simple amendment by way of ministerial whim. It is actually an affirmative resolution procedure. It is a new procedure—maybe the member is unaware of it—and it requires a parliamentary process. It requires the matter to go to the select committee for 28 days and for it to be debated and voted on in this House. I accept that there are problems. I think there should be a requirement to consult the public because there is no requirement at the moment for either the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs or the select committee to consult the public. The other thing that I think is a problem with the process is that there is no ability for either the select committee or the House to amend the notice of motion. I think that that is a serious problem and I think it is something that the Standing Orders need to address. If a matter comes before the House the majority of members may agree in general with the proposal but think it is not quite right and think a particular drug should be classified as a B2 instead of a B1 or as a D2 instead of a D1 if we get to those kinds of schedules. But the House has no ability to make those kinds of changes and I think that is something that needs to be addressed. 
I would like to address the amendment put forward by Judy Turner. I thought it was quite extraordinary that she got up in the Chamber told us she went through the Health Committee’s process on the bill which was pretty long—we went through the bill in a great deal of detail—and then told us she did not understand the amendment the committee has recommended. She seemed to think it was the opposite of what it was. That is not the kind of admission I would make to the Committee if I had made such a mistake but that is up to the member—she can tell us those things if she likes. And of course it is not the first time that Judy Turner has not understood the way the legislation works but that is fine. 
Judy Turner expressed concern about the use of the affirmative resolution procedure to amend the presumption of supply levels. I was actually the member who raised that issue in the committee. The Regulations Review Committee was quite clear on the matter. It stated that the affirmative resolution procedure should not be used to amend the presumption of supply unless it is in association with the classification of a drug. It stated the procedure should be restricted to those circumstances only. I was the one who reminded the committee that we should listen to that advice. The committee in the end made the decision to put in a provision that allowed the presumption of supply to be amended by affirmative resolution apart from classification in one circumstance: where the amendment was to put the presumption of supply level up. The reason is that officials told us we had a serious situation whereby the presumption of supply level was set too low. People were being convicted on supply charges when actually the drug was just for personal use. That is significant because if the drug is a class A drug the maximum penalty for supply is life imprisonment. It is a very serious thing; the maximum penalty is life imprisonment. The officials said that they needed the ability if there is clear evidence that the supply level is set too low to amend it pretty quickly and that is what the committee agreed to do. 
People say that the supply level is not a problem because if a drug is not for supply that can be proved in court. One of the difficulties with a presumption of supply is that there is a reverse onus. It is a basic undermining of the fundamental principles of justice—of being deemed to be innocent until proven to be guilty—because if a person has a certain amount of a controlled drug and it is over the presumption of supply level then that person has to prove it was for personal use. The prosecution has to provide no evidence to back up the idea that the drug is for supply except simply to state the amount. The defendant has to prove it is for personal use and I just do not understand how he or she does that. How does a person go to a court and prove that the drug he or she has is for personal use? That seems to me to be a very difficult thing to prove. I think that one of the fundamental issues with regard to the Misuse of Drugs Act as a whole is that reverse-onus issue. 
The committee received some advice about the presumption of supply issue. At first it was advised that the presumption of supply was to an evidential level of proof not a legal one which was satisfactory but the correction to that advice was that it was actually to a legal level. The difference is that an evidential burden of proof means that the assumption is that the drug is for supply but if a person can show evidence that it is not then the prosecution has to prove it is. 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I think it is of huge concern to Parliament and hopefully to the public of New Zealand when we hear the leader of the Progressive Party the Hon Jim Anderton making light of the affirmative resolution procedure. He said that it was not a draconian procedure. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: That’s right. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Well he is absolutely wrong. He should remember and be reminded of exactly what the Regulations Review Committee said about the affirmative resolution procedure. It said that the amendment of primary legislation by an Order in Council is commonly referred to as a “Henry VIII” clause and is regarded as undesirable because it allows the executive the power to override Parliament. That is exactly what the Progressive Party under the Hon Jim Anderton would love to do. 
He then said that Wyatt Creech some years ago had no problem bringing it in. Well it was brought in with very careful consideration because of the extreme concern about the proliferation of controlled drugs in New Zealand and the very very important need to make sure that law enforcement agencies had some methods to be able to reduce this proliferation. But here we have the leader of the so-called Progressive Party— 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: The “Jim Anderton Party”. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Yes that is what it should be called. But the very important principle is that the leader of the so-called Progressive Party said that this affirmative resolution procedure is not draconian. It is a very very serious procedure. 
The other point the Regulations Review Committee made was this: “In our view the classification of restricted substances is a matter of significant policy that should be dealt with by primary legislation. If a matter needs to be dealt with urgently there are ways of dealing with primary legislation in an expeditious manner.” That is very very important to remember. The other point— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: The Regulations Review Committee said that? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Yes the Regulations Review Committee said that. 
Hon Member 
: Are you going to repeat it? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: I will say it again if the member likes because it is absolutely the nub of the matter: if indeed a matter “needs to be dealt with urgently there are ways of dealing with primary legislation in an expeditious manner.” 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: That was my point. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: That is exactly what the Hon Maurice Williamson was saying and it is very very important that Parliament is reminded of it. 
The other practical point that was brought up by the Regulations Review Committee was that the Health Committee could use up all its time on this particular matter. That is of great worry because surely the Health Committee should be spending its time on much more important matters like the proliferation of spending—waste—that has occurred under the Labour regime over the last 5 years. 
But we also had Steve Chadwick the member for Rotorua and chairperson of the Health Committee saying that no this matter of affirmative resolution is actually not all that important because the Government is putting someone from the Ministry of Justice on the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs. That is great but all the people that one puts on the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs do not make any difference in terms of the huge importance of the normal parliamentary process being carried out when the leader of the Progressive Party the Hon Jim Anderton says that it does not matter that there is a problem with party pills down in Christchurch that he did not hear about it over the last 10 years but has finally woken up to it so he will defy the normal important democratic process and have a knee-jerk reaction to it. 
I think it is very very important that the people of New Zealand realise the lengths that Jim Anderton and his party will go to in order to defy the normal democratic processes. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 90 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 7; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 26 
New Zealand National 26. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Nandor Tanczos to clause 5(2) be agreed to: 
to omit subsection (1AA) from section 4. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 17 
ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 7; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 100 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Judy Turner to clause 5(2) be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (b) from section 4(1B). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 7 
Green Party 7. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Nandor Tanczos to clause 14 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (1) and substitute the following new subclause: 
(1)Section 13(1) of the principal Act is amended by repealing paragraph (aa). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 7 
Green Party 7. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 377 in the name of the Hon Jim Anderton to Part 1 and the following amendments in his name to clause 5(2) be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (a) of section 4(1A) the words “specified in clause 1 of Schedule 5”; and 
to omit paragraph (c) from section 4(1A). 
Amendments agreed to and Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments to Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 1978  
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 This part of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) deals with search and seizure. It also deals with the ability of our police to be able to do their jobs at the border. We totally support Part 2. Our police and our border control people try to do a very good job there. They were very hamstrung by the fact that there was no ability to do anything about someone who turned up in New Zealand having come from Asia or other places overseas with case after case full of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine as a precursor drug for the manufacture of P. Obviously if a case is opened and is found to be stuffed full of those pills we know that the pills are not for regular use. But there was no legislation to prevent that from happening. The National Party totally supports being able to use the expeditious scheduling procedure set up by Wyatt Creech to enable those precursor substances to be put into the Misuse of Drugs Act and to allow the police to then prosecute those who act to bring those sorts of precursor substances into New Zealand. 
The people who are bringing the precursor substances in are doing it simply and utterly so that they can manufacture P. P has caused a huge amount of harm in our society. I remember when that first became an issue. A friend of mine who has since died an older man who gave a great deal of community service came to see me one day because he was part of Victim Support. He told me he could not believe what he was seeing. He was seeing men with good jobs who had always been substantial members of the community but who had just taken one of the party drugs because they were out somewhere and someone had offered it to them and they had gone completely off their heads. They had attacked taxi-drivers gone home and attacked their wives and been involved in a huge number of violent episodes. He told me those people had ruined their lives just through taking one pill. 
When pseudoephedrine and ephedrine have become methamphetamine they increase the neurotransmitters in the brain and sometimes that makes people go absolutely crazy. Some horrendously violent crimes have been committed in this country by people who have been high on P. The other day a grandma came into my constituency clinic to talk to me about her grandson who is 15 and is addicted to P. She was bringing her daughter to come and talk to me too but the daughter was at home dealing with the police because the young man had threatened to kill his two sisters. They took it very seriously—and so they should—because the episodes of violent crime and the psychosis that we are seeing with methamphetamine usage are a very serious issue for New Zealand indeed and our young people need to realise the substantial risk involved. But it is not just young people who are affected. As my friend Alan said to me some older people in their 30s and 40s who have been really good and substantial members of the community have also been drawn into taking party pills or methamphetamine as a one-off and are having severe episodes that have absolutely ruined their lives. We need to do everything we can to stop the people in this country who for the sake of making a lot of money engage in producing those drugs of abuse. National supports doing something about that. 
I listened to some of the speeches especially the ones given by United Future members previously. I do not think they understand the issue. We totally support doing what we can to control any drug that the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs says has a high degree of harm. The issue is the process that is being used to regulate drugs of low harm which is the classification the expert advisory committee gave to benzylpiperazine. The Health Committee had a huge amount of debate on how to do that. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Part 2 again is one of the very important parts of this bill because it allows our customs agents and other law-enforcement agents to react to the very very extraordinary and special techniques that are being used more and more by some of the criminal gangs that are attempting to smuggle illicit drugs into New Zealand. The methods they are using are becoming more and more sophisticated and therefore it is hugely important to have a mechanism to meet the sorts of things they are doing to feed the drug trade in New Zealand and to control the growing problem that we see here. 
I do absolutely agree with my colleague Dr Lynda Scott who mentioned just how drastic is the seriousness of the risks associated with some of these controlled drugs such as methamphetamine and their precursors. There is no doubt that not only can they be addictive but that the bizarre psychotic reactions associated with their ingestion have led to some of the most horrific crimes that we have seen in New Zealand’s history. Therefore it is important that special legislative circumstances are taken to give the enforcement agents the required teeth necessary to make some difference. 
I think it is important to reiterate once again that that is why the Hon Wyatt Creech brought in the expeditious scheduling of controlled drugs and their precursors. This is a very real and serious problem and it is hugely important to use exceptional techniques for this problem in those unique situations. It is very important to realise that the expeditious scheduling and the affirmative resolution process should be used only for specifically unique circumstances. 
This part of the bill deals with allowing delivery of unlawfully imported drugs for purposes of detection seizure of items found during search warrants and international controlled delivery and liability for offences. I think it is worth pointing out that new section 12D(3) inserted by clause 26 again provides for some exceptional circumstances. It states that a: “… Customs officer or officer of a relevant law enforcement agency … who is involved in an international controlled delivery—(a) does not commit an offence under section 6(1)(a) 12AB or 12AC of the principal Act by reason of taking part in that international controlled delivery; and (b) unless he or she is acting in bad faith is not subject to any criminal or civil liability as a result of taking part in that international controlled delivery.” 
One might say that some of the aspects of this part of the bill including those involved with international controlled deliveries and rub-down searches and strip-searches that are required to occur perhaps are exceptional things that normally we would not want to have other than under extreme circumstances. Well the circumstances are extreme. That is why they are included in the bill. That is why the National Party has no hesitation in supporting this part of the bill. But even then once again it is important to realise that some of the drug importers or smugglers into this country are using methods whereby people ingest packages and try to take them through the border. It is very important to be able to have the powers to confine those people in hotels sometimes for up to 2 or 3 weeks to wait for that package of a controlled substance to finally emerge so that an arrest can take place for that individual. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 It is with a certain amount of trepidation that I take another call because when I took what I thought was a reasonably moderate call on Part 1 and said that there were some concerns about giving powers to a Minister—not the Minister in the chair Jim Anderton; I was not trying to be nasty to him—Jim Anderton of the Jim Anderton party who is going to set up a regime that will live for a thousand years got up and savaged me. As members can tell I am quite nervous now because I get worried when people savage me. I kept thinking that I have to pay respect to a man with Jim Anderton’s ability. No one in the history of this world has self-named a party as that man has. There was the Napoleonic era but did Napoleon call his party the “Napoleon Party”? No. The same was true of the Elizabethan era. But we are to have the Andertonian era with a glorious leader and some sort of Kim Il-Sung of North Korea - type equivalent. 
We will even have to change our names. Matt Robson is out there right now changing his name to “Jim Anderton II”. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Order! 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No I will come to Part 2. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is not the issue.There is a correct name for the party you are referring to. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: It is the Jim Anderton party. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No it is not. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I am sorry but the party has applied to the Electoral Commission to change its name to Jim Anderton’s Progressive party. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Not for parliamentary purposes. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: It gets even better! The name is not for parliamentary purposes. Calling oneself the Jim Anderton party is something one does in the privacy of one’s own bedroom but not out in public. At any rate the leaders of the past—Fidel Castro Leon Trotsky—never called a party after themselves. The Jim Anderton party told me I was wrong and evil and I apologise to its glorious leader. I hope the regime lasts for a thousand years. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: You’re easy to savage. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I am; I know that. I am such a delicate little flower that I take those things very personally. But I looked up the books and saw that Mao Tse-Tung did not name the Communist Party of China the “Mao Tse-Tung Party”. He was not as arrogant as that. Lee Kuan Yew who took over Singapore and ran it for three decades did not name a “Lee Kuan Yew Party”. But Jim Anderton— 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Where is this in the bill? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: It is not in the bill but I am surprised the bill is not called the “Jim Anderton Bill”. Why is it not the “Jim Anderton Bill”? What a silly name the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) is. The bill should be the “Jim Anderton Promotion Bill (No 3)”— 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Parliamentary purposes. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: —for parliamentary purposes only and not to be taken at home. That is what the Jim Anderton party is. 
I make it clear that the National Party does support Part 2 which contains the search and seizure provisions. I know I will get another absolute rogering from the Jim Anderton party and I am sorry about that. 
Katherine Rich 
: Strip-searched! 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: There will be a strip-search by the Jim Anderton party. But I make it clear we support the bill because we do know there are certain things in it. As my colleague Lynda Scott pointed out someone who comes through the border with a suitcase absolutely packed with cold and flu remedies that contain all the precursors one needs to head off to a big cook-up to make P is clearly not carrying it for personal use. That person could not use all those remedies in the thousand years that the Jim Anderton party regime will last for. They could not be used personally. So I am really happy that the National Party is supporting this part. I am sorry I got savaged on the first part. I will wait to take my medicine for the next part when it comes. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First is quite clear as to what we are talking about in this part. The bill’s title is the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) and not the name of a particular party. Of course after the election we will not be worrying about names. The only name that will be prominent will be New Zealand First’s. I stand to support this part. These changes provide the Customs Service and the police with the necessary powers to enable them to effectively detect the presence of controlled drugs and to take appropriate action. I must say that the example my colleague from Pakuranga mentioned about visitors coming to this country loaded down with a whole lot of drugs for medicinal purposes could raise an issue as we witnessed on a recent TV programme that featured a lady who came into the country loaded down with particular drugs that she alleged were for personal medicinal use. 
This part indicates to us that it is absolutely essential in the fight against drugs. What is the point of wanting to eliminate illicit drug use and the consequences of that use if the law does not provide the tools for our law enforcement agencies? This part now means that customs and police officers will be able to carry out personal searches on the basis of believing on reasonable grounds that a person is in possession of the drugs listed in clause 26. In essence this part strengthens the ability of the Customs Service and the police in the fight against the illicit use of drugs. It is a known fact that drug use which this bill is about is a growing and serious problem. The considerable harm that is caused invariably impacts not only on those who are directly involved but also on their families and the wider community in which many members are innocent parties in the whole sad episode. The drug P is a drug that we are hearing more and more about—particularly the consequences of its use which are disastrous. I think that there are enough recent cases to suggest that this law is long overdue. We believe it could be strengthened and we will certainly address that issue in the debate on the next part. However I stand to take a short call to say that we support this part. 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 National wholeheartedly supports this part because it will assist Customs Service officials to do their job. When I speak with pharmacists people in the Customs Service and pharmaceutical representatives they tell me that the issue is less to do with problems regulating the products once they get into the country and more to do with border security. People bring in large quantities of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine in order to produce P once they are here and put forward the argument that they are bringing those substances into the country for personal use. 
 Quite clearly if someone turns up to an airport with suitcases full of that stuff they are not using it for personal use. But it has been incredibly difficult for customs officials to prove that and I think we are seeing here some tightening up of their abilities to deal with problems at our borders. We need to get a handle on the amounts of those substances that are imported. Although we can work with pharmacies to ensure that regulated substances are marketed and sold in a managed way we can do more by assisting customs officials to be able to deal with the wide range of problems they face when people try to bring those substances into the country. 
This part clarifies what the Customs Service is able to do. It is quite detailed in that it lays out what can and cannot be done during a strip search or rub-down search and what can be required of a person coming into the country with suitcases full of cough medicine. It makes very clear what the Customs Service can ask a passenger coming into this country to do or not to do. I think that will tidy up some of the problems that have been faced in the past and some of the challenges that have been made when people have come through customs with quite clearly more goods than they would ever possibly use in a lifetime. 
The issue is why there is that level of detail. In the past it has been proven that the level of detail in legislation—when it comes to strip searches as one example—is very important. When the law is not clear people will come in challenge it and get off in many cases on a technicality or because the law does not speak in a very detailed way about a particular incidence. That is why section 13EC “Definition of strip search” inserted by clause 27 goes through in quite some detail what officials may require a person who is being searched to do. It is very clear that it is a very full list. Hopefully we will not see any loopholes and people being able to get off quite serious charges on technicalities. 
Detail is important but I am not sure that we need the level of detail in some aspects of the bill. I draw the Committee’s attention to clause 29 which specifies that the Commissioner of Police and the chief executive of the New Zealand Customs Service must report to Parliament on the number of rub-down searches and strip searches undertaken by members of the police. I just wonder why we need that level of detail when every member of Parliament knows that through a parliamentary question or a question in the House we have access to that information. Why does it need to be specified in law? We live in a country that is increasingly over-regulated and I would like the Associate Minister of Health just to describe and explain I suppose why in that particular provision we need to be quite so specific. It may be something to do with the police and their ability to provide information that perhaps needs to be specified in the law. I am not sure. 
Some good points have been made in this debate by my colleagues particularly about resources for the police. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to take a very brief call on Part 2 in the Committee stage of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) just to say that United Future is very supportive of the provisions. We congratulate the Associate Minister of Health Jim Anderton on providing border staff with some additional strengths. I think it is great that the bill defines very clearly the raft of searches that can be done. Because of privacy issues it is good to be very clear so that the power to search is not abused. 
The thing in this part that particularly interests me is the ability for controlled deliveries to occur. Really when we look at all the strategies around drug use and drug abuse in this country we see that we need to be particularly vigilant to cover those people who make a living from the suffering and addictive behaviours of others. For the Customs Service in concert with the police when they know that a delivery is coming to be able to allow it to happen to monitor it to pick up on the whole down-line process and to see often particularly in terms of precursor substances coming in where it is being delivered and who is manufacturing it—to keep track of the whole system—means that the net that officials can throw is much wider and that is an extremely good development. United Future wants to support the police in this work. 
I really want to say just that we are very supportive of these provisions and very glad that the Minister has taken this step. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 377 in the name of the Hon Jim Anderton to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to and Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Part 3 Restricted substances 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: This debate includes debate on schedule 4. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 It is Part 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) that National has grave concerns about. We have grave concerns about the knee-jerk way that the Hon Jim Anderton has rushed to bring in a Supplementary Order Paper that has been put as Part 3 when there has been absolutely crystal-clear guidance from the Regulations Review Committee that the affirmative resolution procedure should not be used for substances such as party pills and benzylpiperazine with which it will deal. 
I think it is worthwhile just to look at the evidence regarding benzylpiperazine given to the Minister by the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs. The executive summary concluded that insufficient information was available on which to base a recommendation to classify those substances in the schedules of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. The recommendation was absolutely clear but the Hon Jim Anderton of the new “Jim Anderton Party” which used to be known as the Progressive Coalition is defying the very important process that the Regulations Review Committee warned against. Oh no he will put that resolution procedure into Part 3! It is because of that that the National Party has said it does not agree with this. We have made the commitment to bring through when in Government well-considered legislation that indeed addresses in an appropriate way the very concerning problem of party pills in New Zealand. 
That legislation will allow the proper parliamentary procedure to occur and submissions will be able to be heard not in 28 days but in a time that is appropriate to hear them properly so that we can have well-considered legislation. 
 It is important to point out that we heard some pretty colourful submissions regarding Part 3 of the bill including from members of the Social Tonics Association of New Zealand otherwise known as “STANZ”. They pointed out that members of the Social Tonics Association of New Zealand have sold an estimated 8 million servings of benzylpiperazine and related products in the past 5 years with no credible evidence they say of these products causing significant harm. Indeed this is the nub of the situation: these drugs while they are of great concern to New Zealand—and it is a particularly great concern that many young New Zealanders are taking them—do not fall into the category of the very very worrying controlled substances such as amphetamine P and its precursors. 
I think it is worthwhile to point out what the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs says about these substances and about benzylpiperazine which is the most commonly used in particular. It states: “They are stimulant type substances that produce effects similar to known amphetamines and hallucinogens.” However the effects are of nowhere near the severity of those of drugs that fall into the controlled A B and C classifications. The advisory committee states: “There is indeed some concern over the increase in supply of these products which are marketed and distributed independently over the internet through counter-culture retailers and more recently in liquor outlets service stations and dairies.” 
That indeed is how Jim Anderton has finally woken up to the fact that they are being sold all around Christchurch where his electorate is. Finally in a truly dinosaur-like reaction after 10 years of the gradually increasing proliferation of these party pills Jim Anderton has woken up and decided to flick in a Supplementary Order Paper to sort the problem out but unfortunately that Supplementary Order Paper has not been well considered. The National Party believes that thoroughly considered legislation should be brought in to address this worrying problem of party pills. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 Part 3 deals with a new class of restricted substance. It puts in place the same sorts of regulations that we currently have around tobacco and alcohol: restriction to those aged 18 and over health warnings on products advertising controls and of course penalties if people break the law. And there will be restrictions around what is good manufacturing practice for these pills. 
The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs said that benzylpiperazine is not a drug that causes serious harm. I think that drug was a cattle drench to start off with; I think that is where it originated. There are people out there who will use all sorts of things. The minute we regulate for it there will be something else. We are not just talking about benzylpiperazine. That is why National has concerns—because in the future other drugs other substances will be used. Because there will be other substances we need a process that we feel is robust and has been well considered. 
I ask members to think about the other things that are used. Datura is something the effect of which I as a doctor dealt with just about every year when young people who had taken it would come in to the accident and emergency department. Datura produces atropine. It makes people slightly crazy makes their eyes dilate and makes them very hot but it gives them a high and every year people poison themselves on this drug. The plant grows around New Zealand and people are sometimes stupid enough to try to manufacture a psychoactive substance from it and take it. I am not sure if there have been deaths from this drug but many people have certainly got very close to dying from it. Then there are magic mushrooms which people go and pick. We hope they do not manage to eat death cap mushrooms and completely ruin their livers so that they need liver transplants. 
People will go and find other substances to use. It would be better if we were looking at the reasons why our young people feel they have to take those sorts of things to have a good time. I guess that is one of the reasons why there is concern about these party pills. Even though the expert advisory committee said these pills carry a low risk of harm they condition our young people into thinking they have to take a pill in order to have a good time. Some of it may just be a placebo effect. We know in medicine that in 30 percent of cases where people take a sugar pill believing it will do something good for them it actually does because of what is called the placebo effect. That young people get into this mindset that they cannot have a good time—that they cannot get a natural high that they cannot enjoy an evening out—without taking something to help them do so is I think of great concern. 
We have to ask ourselves why we have such a high youth suicide rate why we have such poor statistics in relation to our youth. I believe that some of it is to do with their low self-esteem and that that is why they feel they have to use alcohol to loosen up a bit or have to take a pill to make themselves more sociable. Those are some of the issues we need to deal with—along with the breakdown of the family and the social decay that make these children feel that that is what they have to do. 
Although the National Party has concerns about this area and would like to see restrictions we believe that Part 3 should have come in as a separate bill. We could then have called for submissions on it so that we hit the target that we want. We have seen time and time again legislation with good intentions—and I think Part 3 has good intentions—that misses its target and we end up coming back to it to make amendments to change things. That actually makes things more difficult not better. 
Benzylpiperazine does need restriction. This bill will pass today and we will see that restriction put in place. But the minute that substance is restricted there will be something else being used. We need to know whether the process that is being set up by this bill will actually work. All that Part 3 does is restrict advertising restrict the sale of substances to under-18-year-olds and make sure that there is good manufacturing practice. That is another concern. It is not just the main substance in the tablet; it is what gets puts in with it that as we have seen with some health products can cause harm. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 I would like to know why the National Party wants to have it both ways on this part. We are told that these drugs have been a problem for the last 10 years. If there has been a problem for the last 10 years then at least on reasonably primitive arithmetic for half of that time the National Party was in Government. What did it do? The answer is “Nothing”. We are now trying to do something and we are told that we should have done it 10 years ago when National was in Government. Oh really? I can see one of those Tui advertisements coming up: “Yeah right.” 
Mr Hutchison said that this a worrying problem. But what did he suggest? He suggested that it was too difficult. This is like the process police. I suggest that he go out and ask the parents in shopping malls in New Zealand what they think. Mr Hutchison thinks this problem exists only in Christchurch. Does he go anywhere else in New Zealand than where he lives? Does he understand what is going on in the hinterland in the regions of New Zealand? No. He should ask the parents of 12-year-olds in shopping malls who actually get proselytised and promoted to by those who are pushing these drugs what they think. 
The National Party’s view is that it is difficult we should think about it and we should wait and see. Is that what parents think? No it is not. It is “make my day” time as far as the rest of New Zealand is concerned in relation to the kind of attitude Mr Hutchison takes. He said that this part is the whim of a Minister. Does he realise that the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs advised me as Minister to take a precautionary position on this matter and to for example restrict the age of sale—which is exactly what this bill does? Is the National Party for it or against it or has it not made up its mind? Will it repeal the provisions under the affirmative resolution process? I ask National to answer that. It has railed against a process that delivers on time in a timely way changes that address immediate acute issues in New Zealand. 
 National members say that this is a terrible legal process and that it is undemocratic even though it goes through an Order in Council process through the select committee and back to Parliament. They call it a draconian whim. Well there may be one thing worse than a “Jim Anderton Party” and that is a “Don Brash Party”. If Don Brash is the answer there must have been a very silly question in the first place. 
Darren Hughes 
: Would they repeal it? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Yes they can tell us whether they would repeal it. That would be honest. I can understand that. They can say that it is such a terrible process and that when National becomes the Government—in another 30 years’ time—they would repeal it. I ask them to tell us that so that I can have some respect for their position. But this posturing around the place is ridiculous. 
Licit substances—and benzylpiperazine has been one up until now and still is—are not necessarily without danger. I ask members to read the coroners’ reports on the kids who have died from solvent abuse. Members should read the coroners’ letters to Associate Ministers of Health like me that ask us to do something about this stuff—and then write back to them and to say that it is too hard: “Look I am sorry we are only the Parliament of New Zealand. What do you expect us to do?”! 
Why did I get elected here—to do nothing? Coroners have written to me saying that they have presided over the inquest of five young kids who died from solvent abuse and they have asked whether I could try to do something about it. Well the Opposition would say: “No I am sorry. We are thinking about it. We do not know.” It is ridiculous. 
The Health Committee to its credit addressed the issue did its best on it and referred it back to me and said that it was a bit hard and it would have to be looked at. Well we will look at it and I am getting urgent advice on that. That has been in the too-hard basket for so long that it is ridiculous. In truth more kids die from solvent abuse than from party pills or anything like that so we have to address that. In reality of course not all outlets are irresponsible. Some retail outlets such as The Warehouse have taken off the shelves some of the licit substances like butane which has actually killed kids and they actually sell them responsibly. Unfortunately not everyone is like that. I give credit to them and others who do the same. 
Parliament cannot just say that it is too hard and that we cannot do anything about it. Not all outlets are so responsible. People want to know what Parliament will do about it. This party in Government supported by responsible Opposition and supportive parties in the House is giving support to doing something. I wish the National Party would make it clear whether it was for or against it. We have had so many positions put by the National Party that we would not have a clue whether it is for or against it whether it wants to repeal provisions or whatever else. I am getting very clear messages from most of the Parliament that it is strongly supportive of this. I think the National Party should say yes or no. If it is not supportive of it it should say whether it would repeal the provisions. Let us hear it and then we will know. I think the rest of us want to get on with this bill and get it into law as fast as we can. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I must say it was quite strange to hear Lynda Scott talking about the other substances that are already available. It is quite true but that was one of the issues the Health Committee addressed quite carefully in the way that “substance” is defined. It includes any mixture preparation or article manufactured for the primary purpose of inducing a psychoactive effect. That is a deliberate attempt to ensure that the category is opened up so that new substances can be added. Let me add once again that it was the Green input that actually got that definition because the committee was looking at restricting it to simply benzylpiperazine alone and it would have been a major mistake if we had gone in that direction. 
I will address three of my amendments. One amendment is to clause 36 “Matters to which Minister must have regard before recommending Order in Council under section 34(1)”. The bill puts forward a number of criteria that the Minister must have regard to that are in addition to the matters already set out in the primary Act in section 4B(2). I made the point in the second reading stage that I do not understand why we would have one set of criteria for controlled drugs classified under A B or C class and a different set of criteria for those under D class. As I said before it suggests that we have already determined what classification we will make before we have even looked at the criteria and the evidence. It makes obvious sense to have one set of criteria incorporating both those sets for all substances and then the recommendation of where they should be classified would drop out of that. 
Why would we not want those criteria to apply to any drug? Let us look at them. In clause 36(2)(b)(v) one of the matters is “the risk of encouraging persons to use more dangerous substitutes in place of the substance:”. I take the example of khat which I understand is a class C drug. It is a bush that Somalian and North African people have been chewing for a long time as a mild stimulant. If we were going through the evidence-based criteria that we now have in place which we did not have when khat was classified would we not want the Minister and the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs to consider whether making khat illegal might encourage North African people to use a more dangerous stimulant? Would we not want to ask that question? Would we not want to know? Would we not want that to be considered? It is unbelievable to me that we think those criteria do not apply in terms of classifying drugs as A B or C. 
Subparagraph (vi) refers to the matter of “whether alternatives to restrictions or requirements imposed on the substance are available and are likely to be effective in reducing the risks or harm resulting from abuse of the substance.” Surely we would want to ask whether there were alternatives to making people criminals. Surely we would want to consider that to have it in our mind and to make it part of the equation. I hope members will support my amendment to clause 36 in that regard. 
The other amendment is to clause 58. As I have said before the enforcement powers are very draconian. At the moment if an enforcement officer—health officer—or member of the police believes that an offence has been is being or will be committed he or she has the right to go in and seize any restricted substance document or record. That could put someone out of business if there are no safeguards around that. My amendment states that it has to be done by warrant—not just because a police officer or health officer believes that there is an offence. There has to be some evidence some basis for that belief. That is quite appropriate and is like most legislation in this country. 
The other aspect of the amendment is a time limit. If officers seize any substance they may not retain it for any longer than 72 hours unless an information is laid in respect of the relevant serious offence. The situation at the moment is that a health officer could say: “I think you’re going to commit an offence sometime in the future.” and could then go in and seize all the products off a person’s shelf and seize his or her computer records. The officer would never have to charge the person or to give the items back but could just hold on to them forever. That will simply put people out of business; that will destroy businesses. There has to be some safeguard. If people break the law of course they should be punished. But this legislation opens the door to punishing people who are abiding by all the laws and regulations and simply gives unrestricted power. If members look at other kinds of offences they will see that my amendment is quite in line with them. 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 I call on the Associate Minister of Health to take another call because there seems to be a glaring inconsistency in his thought processes with regard to this bill and another bill before the House that aims to increase the drinking age. Both of those bills were brought forward to the House by the Progressive Party. I would like the Minister to explain why it is OK for an 18-year-old to buy a party pill yet why according to the Minister that young person is not able to make the decision to buy a beer until he or she is 20 years old. Why does the Minister assume that a New Zealand citizen is responsible enough to make a decision about whether he or she buys benzylpiperazine but not responsible enough to make a decision about whether he or she buys a glass of wine? There is a major glaring inconsistency in the approach of the “Jim Anderton Party” to this issue. It is saying that it is OK for young people to buy party pills at the age of 18 but if they want to buy a beer at the pub they need to be 20. 
The Minister told National members to go into the shopping malls and explain our position to concerned parents. I say to that Minister that he should go into shopping malls and tell parents why it is OK for New Zealand youth to buy party pills when they are 18 when he is going to turn round and vote to raise the drinking age for alcohol. That is not consistent—there is a glaring inconsistency. He is saying that young people are responsible enough to make a decision about one licit substance yet are not responsible enough to make a decision about another licit substance that has been in our community for centuries. I ask the Minister where the logic is that allows him to vote for the regulation of the sale of party pills to 18-year-olds yet also allows him to say that he does not trust young people with the ability to make a decision about whether they share a beer with their parents or friends etc. 
There is no consistency in the two bills the Minister’s party has brought before this House—well Part 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) has basically been brought to the House by his party although it is now incorporated into a Government bill. There seems to be no logic in the dual positions the Minister is currently holding about two substances that are legal in this community. I would like him to explain how he will vote to allow New Zealand kids to buy party pills and herbal highs yet will tell them they are not responsible enough to buy a beer or to make a decision about alcohol—which is something the community has had a lot more experience with than some of the herbal highs and substances we have seen proliferate in our communities in the last few years. The Minister has asked us to make his day by explaining our position; I would like him to make our day by explaining that glaring inconsistency. 
There does not seem to be a helluva lot of logic in trying to regulate two different licit substances and saying to New Zealand citizens that they need to be 18 to buy one substance yet 20 to buy another. Although we have all this feigned concern about what is going on in the community it seems to be more about politics and winning votes for the “Jim Anderton Party” as opposed to really dealing with the issues consistently and logically with evidence and science and bringing in laws that are consistent and that make some sense. 
The other point I would like to bring up in relation to Part 3 concerns the definition of “substance”. We all know that people who are involved in drugs will try to work around regulation so why does the bill define “substance” as something that has the primary purpose of inducing a psychoactive response? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 I will give just a brief explanation. At least at the end of my explanation people will understand my position; I still do not understand National’s position even after I have heard that speech—and there have been a number of such speeches. The first thing is that this is a Government measure not a member’s bill. The Government and other parties in this Parliament are bringing this bill before the Parliament. The bill concerning the alcohol age limit was a member’s bill that was a conscience issue for Parliament and let me remind the member who raised the issue that plenty of evidence out there plenty of studies nationally and internationally show the serious effect of alcohol on young people. Benzylpiperazine as has been indicated is a new substance in terms of its use by ordinary people. [ 
Interruption 
] 
It was a cattle drench—that is true—and people probably did not have any idea that someone would sell cattle drench as a party pill. But they are now doing that—and guess what? The Government has commissioned studies and research on benzylpiperazine and when that research comes back it may well be that it will show there is no problem whatever. However it may well be that the research will show more problems than we even know about. If there are such problems and if the recommendations of the expert advisory committees and researchers are that we should take further action then we will. So that is the difference between alcohol and benzylpiperazine research. 
The evidence is in on alcohol in my view and in the view of a lot of other members in this Parliament; we are waiting for the other evidence. The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs advised us to make a precautionary stand and it suggested making that stand for the age of 18. It suggested the age; I did not. We have had the age of 18 for alcohol and in the minds of many people in this Parliament—and in the minds of many people outside it; in fact in the minds of the majority of New Zealanders outside it—that experiment of lowering the drinking age failed. So we are now addressing it and we cannot be blamed for doing that. Seventy percent of New Zealanders actually agree with us so if National members are saying that that is a bad thing they can make my day twice. If they are saying they cannot make up their minds on this bill they can make my day again. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I think it is timely that I enter the debate particularly in terms of what the two previous speakers have spoken about. My colleague Barbara Stewart has put forward a Supplementary Order Paper that suggests that benzylpiperazine party drugs herbal drugs and all other psychoactive substances should be included in the list of drugs prohibited from being available to the general community. Now as the Hon Jim Anderton the Minister in the chair mentioned there is no evidence about benzylpiperazine available at the moment but I would suggest to this Committee that given the impact that the use of illicit drugs has had on our society it would be better to err on the side of caution than to run the risk of waiting in the meantime for research to take place. We do not know how long that research will take and in the meantime benzylpiperazine and other drugs will be available to our young people to use in the way they feel fit. 
New Zealand First believes that all party drugs including benzylpiperazine and other psychoactive substances should be placed on the controlled drugs schedule. Although we are pleased some regulation is being placed around party pills—in relation to their place of sale age limits for use and manufacturing practices—we believe that that does not sufficiently address the problems and possible long-term health effects upon young users. 
I found it very interesting that during the course of the debate on this very important bill we had a group of young people in the Chamber. They would have been listening intently to the respective views and wondering whether some people in this Parliament really have their future as a concern. How can the effects of those drugs be considered low-risk? New Zealand First does not think they are and we are waiting for the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs to carry out further research into that area. The research as we all know is desperately needed; no one is sure of long-term effects. We do not want to see a whole age group of young New Zealanders harmed from possible toxicity or brain damage from substances that currently are legally available. 
Simon Williamson Manager for Drug Investigations in the Customs Service has said: “These pills are literally pouring into the country in huge quantities and New Zealand seems to be a unique market for them. In my view this is a clear case of the current regulations not keeping pace with the influx of synthetic designer substances that are available.” Further on he says that the people “pushing this stuff” have invariably got a vested interest in its sale: “These people are making a lot of money by arguing that this is a safe alternative to illegal drugs and all I can say to that is its”—I cannot use the word in this Chamber! “The pills are central nervous system stimulants and there is evidence becoming available now which suggests that they are toxic in content and damaging to the brain in high doses.” 
So although we are pleased to see some regulation of those substances we would like to see stronger regulations surrounding their sale. It is particularly noticeable that manufacturing standards cannot be guaranteed under current regulations. One of the most urgent problems is the continued supply of benzylpiperazine in excessive and sometimes dangerous doses by irresponsible operators. As Mr Anderton well knows that is particularly problematic in Christchurch. This is also something that should be addressed in this Committee stage. If we are to hold the manufacturers accountable under this law we need to be sure that justice is seen to be done. 
I refer to a press release put out by my colleague Barbara Stewart which quoted a medical toxicologist from the National Poisons Centre as saying that the adverse effects of these drugs are just beginning to show and that the pills should not be sold in New Zealand without a prescription. That reinforces our view that there should be no softening of drug laws for these new designer drugs. To that extent I hope the Committee will support the Supplementary Order Paper put in by my colleague. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I stand to talk to Part 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) and to Supplementary Order Paper 298 in the name of the Hon Jim Anderton which was tabled when we were already considering the bill in the Health Committee. From the outset when it was first tabled—and the select committee members will remember this—I was extremely cautious about the party pills issue. I know that the Green member thinks that makes me fickle. However I did not want to approach this matter with a sort of arrogant belief that I had a monopoly on the truth. I was very interested to hear the opinions of the various select committee members on this matter. The tension that we worked with was that on the one hand there was a huge call from the community—and I remember particularly a letter from the Christchurch City Council—asking us not to shy away from our responsibilities as legislators and to move to put something in place at least in the short term to deal with the problem that people see on the streets. On the other hand the counterbalancing tension was that it appeared to many of us that putting party pills under the Misuse of Drugs Act was not necessarily the best option. 
The officials gave us some very good advice and it was their advice that tempered my position. They said—and I heard several different lines on this—that 6 to 12 months’ work would need to be done and I have since read that possibly even 2 years’ work would need to be done to get a stand-alone restricted substances bill. We recommended in the commentary on the bill that that work be continued and I would still like it to continue. I think that would ultimately be our preferred outcome. But it did not provide an immediate solution and it would be cowardly of us as members of Parliament not to make some attempt in that regard. I want to thank the chair of the select committee Steve Chadwick for her guidance on this matter and also the officials because I really do think we have to be pragmatic in such situations. 
I appreciate the conservative approach of the New Zealand First amendments. Starting from a position of prohibition is I guess an extremely safe position to take. However we were not— 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member is obviously in some discomfort. Perhaps I could seek the leave of the House for just a moment for her to collect herself—so that other members do not attempt to take a call or anything—and resume her speech when she is ready. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you for raising that. We will just bide time for a moment. There is no hurry Judy Turner. 
JUDY TURNER 
: On the New Zealand First amendments I do feel that the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs has given us some guidelines on the matter of party pills and I think we need to move on those. However I share the concerns of the New Zealand First members. I think we do want to see the role of the expert advisory committee include the opportunity for constant and active review of this decision. My concern with regard to party pills is the cocktail effect when they are combined with alcohol. Part of what we regulate may be that party pills are unable to be sold in a context where alcohol is being sold as well—that may be a good solution. However we did want to support this measure so that something is put in place now to respond to the many requests that certainly came across my desk in that regard. So we are very happy and I want to thank also the Hon Jim Anderton because when I approached him with my concerns he had a very open door on the matter. I appreciate that because I do feel that we need to proceed on all these matters with great caution. 
This problem will not go away. As fast as we put regulations around products new products are coming online. We do need to be extremely vigilant as we monitor those substances and their effect and how they are consumed. I read a media release the other day on party pills which stated that one of the concerns is the quantities in which party pills can be sold. There are recommended dosages on the product but there is strong anecdotal evidence that young people ignore those recommendations and take far more than is recommended. We need to look then at the quantities the product is sold in. To wait for 2 years is absolutely not an option and it is a very irresponsible position to take. 
However let me just reiterate that United Future would challenge whoever is in Government after this election to make this matter a priority to advance the work that does need to be done—to take the 2 years if that is what it will take—and to get up a restricted substances Act. I think there are some long-term problems. I accept—and this will please the Green member—that one of the things I found very difficult in working on this bill was that it was a bit of a dog’s breakfast. I am not sure that Mr Tanczos and I would agree on how it should be improved. However I found it quite difficult at times to get my head around some of the provisions because they have been amended by adding bits on all over the place. I do think that an overall reworking could be done of our drugs legislation. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 To be fair to the previous speaker Judy Turner perhaps I made some uncharitable remarks earlier and it is a very complex and difficult bill. One of the things I think there is widespread agreement on is that there needs to be a major review of the misuse of drugs framework in order to produce some kind of coherent integrated drugs framework. 
I rose though to address the amendments of Barbara Stewart and I do so because the New Zealand First member raised the issue. Unlike Judy Turner I do not think New Zealand First’s amendment is a particularly conservative or safe approach to these substances. Ms Stewart is trying to add party pills herbal drugs and all other psychoactive substances to the schedule as we have done with benzylpiperazine. I have to ask what that would mean. Herbal drugs—does that mean that health food shops selling chamomile tea which is a known relaxant will now have to restrict it make it R18 and have labelling and manufacture restrictions? Does that mean grocers selling lettuce which we know contains an opiate latex will suddenly have to make it R18? Does it mean that nutmeg will be restricted to adults? Will we be raiding Little India franchises to bust them for selling curries to minors? It is just bizarre! Let us get real about what it would actually mean. 
Adding all other psychoactive substances to the schedule would clearly include Coca-Cola because it contains caffeine. The rumour I have heard—I do not know whether it is true; I am a bit younger than many of the members here—is that one of the contributing factors to the horrors of the Pinochet regime in Chile was the nationalisation of Coca-Cola. If that is true imagine what it will do to us if we try to make its product R18! It will not just be a military takeover; it will be lining us all up against the wall. 
 When we start to use those kinds of definitions which are so broad we have to actually understand what they mean. Perhaps I am being a bit light with the member’s amendment but I think it does demonstrate that we have a pretty strange attitude when it comes to psychoactive substances because they are all through our society. Drugs are all though our society and I do not know whether there is a member in this Chamber who does not use drugs in one form or another. I would be highly surprised if that were the case. Very few people use no drugs and I think that situation would probably apply only to strict Mormons. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Nicotine. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Nicotine—exactly! Many members of this Parliament smoke. Drugs are rife in this society. Many members of this Parliament use some of the most dangerous drugs that are available in this country. Tobacco is one of the most addictive drugs and one of the most damaging to the body. Members of this Parliament smoke. 
Bill Gudgeon 
: What about cannabis? 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Well actually that is quite incorrect. The member needs to look at the evidence on how many people die from smoking tobacco a year compared with how many people die from smoking cannabis a year which is zero. Then the member might be informed enough to express an opinion on the matter. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Nandor Tanczos to clause 36 be agreed to: 
to insert in subclause (1) after the words “section 34(1) the words “or section 4(1) of the principal Act”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 7 
Green Party 7. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Nandor Tanczos to clause 58 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (1) and substitute the following new subclause: 
(1)Any District Court Judge or Justice or Community Magistrate or any Registrar (not being a constable) may issue to a member of the police a warrant to enter a place who on an application in writing made on oath is satisfied that— 
(a)there is a restricted substance in that place; and 
(b)an offence has been is being or will be committed under this Part in relation to that restricted substance in that place. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 7 
Green Party 7. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Nandor Tanczos to clause 58 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (c) from subclause (3) and substitute the following new paragraph: 
(c)seize any restricted substance document or record (of any kind) or other article relating to a restricted substance (for example any advertising or labelling material) and retain for not longer than 72 hours unless an information is laid in respect of a relevant serious offence. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 7 
Green Party 7. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 377 in the name of the Hon Jim Anderton to clause 32 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 82 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 7; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 1 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Barbara Stewart to schedule 1 be agreed to: 
to add to New Part 3 the following items: 
Benzylpiperazine (BZP) 
Party Drugs 
Herbal Drugs 
All other psychoactive substances. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 13 
New Zealand First 13. 
Noes 103 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 7; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to and schedule 1 agreed to. 
Schedules 2 and 3 agreed to. 
Schedule 4 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 4 be agreed to. 
Ayes 82 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 7; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Schedule4 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the preliminary clauses of this very important Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3). The National Party is indeed supporting these very important parts of the bill because as introduced they amend two main areas of the Misuse of Drugs Act and the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 1978. These deal with presumption of supply matters to be amended by Order in Council subject to the affirmative resolution procedure; they also amend the presumption of supply quantity for methamphetamine and add a Ministry of Justice official as a member of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs. The National Party certainly believes that all those things are very important in terms of ensuring that the affirmative resolution procedure can be used in the most optimal way possible given that it is a very special procedure. 
I did not get an opportunity when we were discussing Part 1 to talk about the Needle and Syringe Exchange Programme. One of the aspects of Part 1 was indeed the reversal of proof that would be allowed for individuals who were on the programme so that they would not be subject to having to provide proof in the first instance that the needles were not obtained legally. Instead the proof is on the part of the police to do this. I think that is a very useful measure because undoubtedly the Needle and Syringe Exchange Programme in New Zealand has essentially been a very useful process. 
I was approached by the Drug Foundation to support an amendment that might completely remove any form of punishment for needle exchange users whether they had obtained those needles through the programme or through illicit means. I understand that the international evidence has been that where there has been no form of recrimination for those needle users it has meant that they have been able to go about the needle exchange process much more freely than is the case at present. Because as I understand that even with the reversal of proof it still will mean their going to court and going through the process that they find sometimes pretty arduous and pretty difficult when they are actually part of the needle exchange process and are taking at least the responsible action to make sure that the needles that they use are clean and are unlikely to be associated with HIV hepatitis and all the infectious diseases that we are very concerned about for those substantial number of people who do indeed use needles in this country. 
I note that the final report of the Needle and Syringe Exchange Programme recommended that the New Zealand Government and the community recognise the vital role of the exchange programme in preventing HIV infections and I absolutely concur with that. It also said that the New Zealand Parliament should approve the proposed amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act that would remove the offensive possession of needles and syringes legally obtained through the exchange programme and indeed National supports that. 
It went on to say in its 16th recommendation that the basic training of the New Zealand Police should include a short session on New Zealand’s harm minimisation and the Needle and Syringe Exchange Programme and that that exchange programme should liaise with the police to achieve this goal. I think that is very important and the National Party supports it. 
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. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I shall talk to both clauses 1 and 2 and I shall deal with clause 2 first. Notwithstanding the technicalities that may prevent my suggestion I believe that this legislation should come into force on the day the royal assent is given rather than on the day after that. 
But having said that I say New Zealand First considers this to be a very important bill. It is important that the title is clearly understood by everyone. Notwithstanding that some legislation in the past has included clauses that lacked definition and of course I refer to clauses regarding the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi New Zealand First is glad to see that those principles are not included in this bill. It just goes to show that we really do not need those principles to be alluded to. It is more difficult to realise from the title that this important legislation relates to the regulation of benzylpiperazine and other party drugs. The manufacturers of those pills need to be able to identify easily and to understand these regulations. We understand that separate legislation for restricted substances is at least 18 months away. We will follow that development with some interest. 
It is pleasing to note that groups like the Social Tonics Association of New Zealand are already taking measures to put into place many of the community-focused measures that are covered in this bill. This legislation will clarify that benzylpiperazine is not a dietary supplement or a food. Since it is included as a restricted substance it is therefore by definition not a food or dietary supplement. That group is therefore taking voluntary steps in anticipation of further regulation under the bill once it is passed—and I am talking about the Social Tonics Association of New Zealand. The association is changing its labels so that products are no longer marketed as dietary supplements. It is also recommending three issues: firstly limiting the amount of benzylpiperazine contained in each pill to 200 milligrams with a limit of 600 milligrams per packet secondly including more explicit warnings on labels that benzylpiperazine is contained in products and they are not to be sold to under 18-year-olds and thirdly developing terms of trade to prevent retailers from selling to persons under 18. It is essential that benzylpiperazine products are manufactured and sold safely. The association remains committed to regulations that will exclude irresponsible and unsafe operators from the industry. 
This bill is an example of an evidence-based approach to policy development and of a strong commitment to harm minimisation. New Zealand First again repeats its support for the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3). 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I was not intending to speak on this part but I did rise to speak because Dr Paul Hutchison raised a very important issue around needle exchange. I did actually move an amendment to remove the possession of needles as an offence. Members may have missed it because it is in a miscellaneous provisions clause and again that comes back to the problem of the bill and the Act as a whole. They are quite difficult things to find one’s way around in. 
There is a concern that even by reversing the onus of proof—as the bill does—people are hindered from using clean needles. The Health Committee heard very strong evidence that police do use the existing law. Generally police do not charge people for possession of needles but they do use it to bully people and extract information. That does hinder intravenous drug users from using clean needles and that is the problem. Perhaps it is not such a big problem with current intravenous drug users because the current intravenous drug using community is well aware of the needle exchange programme how it works and its safeguards. But what is of increasing concern is new intravenous drug users. There is growing anecdotal evidence that some P users are starting to move to intravenous use. The evidence is not very clear it is not very substantial but certainly the anecdotal evidence that is coming off the streets is that as methamphetamine gets more scarce and more expensive some people are starting to move to intravenous drug use. 
Obviously that is extremely worrying in a number of ways and it should concern us all. But I certainly think we would all share the view that if people are starting to move towards intravenous drug use there should be no hindrance to their getting clean needles. Of course there is a simple cost equation as well. There are enormous cost savings to be made in health care. At present there is a 6 percent sharing rate of needles and if that was reduced or eliminated that would produce huge savings for New Zealand health care. An independent valuation found that every dollar spent on New Zealand’s needle exchange programme currently saved an estimated $3.35 in health-care costs. So there is an enormous economic as well as social moral and ethical argument for doing that. 
The committee did address this issue but it was persuaded by the police not to remove it as an offence entirely. The arguments of the police were actually quite spurious. They said that they needed it for drug control and to stop an illegal market in needles. Let us be clear: there is no black market for needles and syringes in New Zealand—that is all needles and syringes used for drug injection are obtained from an authorised supplier. Even if we did remove possession of needles as an offence it would not take away the offence of unauthorised selling. One still has to be an authorised seller so people could still be prosecuted if they were selling needles and they were not authorised to do so. So the law stays in place to allow us to police that. 
In any case let us be real about it: there are no incentives for an illegal market in needles. The concern was raised that there might be a drug dealer who was selling needles as well. First there is no incentive for people to buy needles from a dealer because they can get them free from the needle exchange simply by swapping their old ones. So there is no financial incentive; there is a disincentive to get needles from a dealer. Secondly perhaps dealers could give them away but why would they do that? Why would they incur an extra cost on themselves when there is no benefit in doing that? People would just go to the needle exchange to get one. In any case if dealers were giving away clean needles surely that would be a good thing. I would have thought so. It would be better than allowing their customers to share needles and therefore put themselves at risk of contracting HIV hepatitis or any of the other blood-borne diseases. The third possibility was that drug dealers would give away dirty needles. That just does not make sense. They would lose their customer base pretty quickly if they did that. Customers would know pretty quickly that that was going on and they would not use them. So it just does not make sense. 
The argument is just illogical and it is sad that the Health Committee was persuaded by it because I do not think it holds any water. That is pretty clear from international evaluations and we can look at the report of the Australian National Drug Law Enforcement Research Fund titled:  
The role of police in preventing and minimising illicit drug use and its harm 
 which shows clearly the benefits of needle exchanges and removing the possession of needles as an offence. As I said there are enormous savings in health costs mortality rates morbidity rates and the like. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I shall take a brief call on the first two clauses of this Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3). 
First I shall make a quick reference to the needle exchange business. The police shared their concern that if we removed the full ability for needles to be used evidentially that could encourage needle use over other methods of consumption—that needle use would then become a preferred method because of the legal sanction around it. That was a real concern that some of us shared. 
I want to talk about the title of the bill. What comes to mind is what has been mentioned many times in the Chamber this morning and that is that many of us—and we included it in the commentary on this bill—want to see ongoing work done to set up a restricted substances Act for legal psychoactive substances. I want to take a minute to challenge every party. 
I shall start with National and Labour the two parties that are going into this election campaign with the belief that they can viably be the Government after the election. My challenge to them is whether they are prepared to promise us today in the Chamber that they will continue the work which I understand could take up to 2 years. Will those parties give us a guarantee that if they become the Government they will treat that work as a priority so that a restricted substances Act is established? It requires the will of the Government and I believe that those parties should make that commitment today. 
But beyond that I ask this question of the other parties whose goal is to be a support party after the election and who seek to wield some power in terms of the conditions they put down to the party they are supporting: will they give the same undertaking that after the election they will set as a priority with whichever party they are working with—if they get that opportunity—the advancing of this much-needed work so that a restricted substances Act is put in place? I ask that question of New Zealand First the Greens and ACT. Will they make a commitment and guarantee us today that they would see that as a priority and that it would be part of any agreement they made if they got the chance to make an agreement? I think every party needs to put itself on the line in that regard. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 377 in the name of the Hon Jim Anderton to clause 1 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to and clause 1 as amended agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Third Reading 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a third time 
. This bill updates our drug laws and makes them more responsive to licit - drug use trends in New Zealand. I know that all parties in Parliament understand the importance of such a measure. In particular the bill will permit presumption of supply matters to be amended by Order in Council at the same time as a change in classification subject to the normal affirmative resolution procedure by Parliament which of course means that Parliament still gets to decide the issue. 
The bill sets the presumption of supply amount for methamphetamine at 5 grams rather than the present default amount of 56 grams. It removes the ability for the classification level of a controlled drug to be decreased or a classification to be removed by Order in Council and the affirmative resolution procedure. That change to the select committee report was sought by the United Future party. The bill adds a Ministry of Justice official to the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs. It creates new offences relating to the importing and exporting of precursor substances which are ingredients like ephedrine and pseudoephedrine that are used in the manufacture of methamphetamine. It creates new powers of search and seizure without warrant for ephedrine and pseudoephedrine and it allows controlled deliveries of precursor substances which will deal to some of our drug dealers. 
The bill retains the offence of possessing a needle or a syringe but it puts the defence of where the needle or syringe has been obtained lawfully into the principal Act. Currently this defence is hidden away in regulations where few lawyers with not much experience can find it. It moves the onus of proof from the defendant to the prosecution as recommended by public health experts. 
Finally the bill adds a new restricted substance as part of the legislation and regulates benzylpiperazine the main ingredient found in party pills as the first restricted substance in New Zealand under the terms of the amended legislation and it almost certainly will not be the last. 
Today I would again like to thank all members of the Health Committee for their valuable work on this bill. I know there have been complex matters to deal with. Committee members had to tackle the public health and legal issues within a relatively tight time frame but it is a better time frame than the years it sometimes took previously to get these matters before the House. I know that some members would have liked a great deal more time to consider a number of issues arising from the bill but against that I know that the majority of us here understand the need to move as quickly and practically as possible to respond to changing trends in the drug abuse scene. 
Since I became the Associate Minister of Health and became responsible for the national drug policy 3 years ago the Labour-Progressive Government has put in place a sophisticated strategy to try to turn the tide against the harm caused by drugs in our country. This strategy includes getting very tough on the pedlars of very dangerous drugs like the manufacturers and importers of methamphetamine and its precursors. Our strategy includes increasing the amount of public investment on reducing the demand for drugs through community-based education and action programmes. It also includes investing more in treatment services because there will need to be more if we are to realistically expect significant numbers of former drug users to get back on their feet and live a drug-free lifestyle. 
Our strategy includes investment in empirical research into the medical health and social and economic effects that drug abuse is having on individuals on their families and on communities in New Zealand. 
To effectively turn the tide against the abuse of alcohol and drugs we need to work on all fronts at the same time. I have to say that I think some of the squabbling about whether we should have more stick and less carrot or more carrot and less stick is not very productive. Effectively reducing the harm that drug abuse is causing is not an either/or matter. It is about central government communities local government and families working together on all fronts as appropriate to reduce harm from drug abuse. This bill before the House fits with that multifaceted and balanced strategy. I recommend it to the House. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 The National Party certainly does support the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) as introduced because it deals with the very concerning area of controlled drugs and the huge need in New Zealand to use every possible method to stop their very worrisome proliferation. I want to remind the House of how that proliferation has occurred. We learn from the Institute of Environmental Science and Research that New Zealand’s first methamphetamine or P clandestine laboratory was discovered in 1996. Since then the number of laboratories has dramatically increased particularly in the last few years. Police found nine laboratories in 2000. In 2001 they found 41 in 2002 147 and in 2003 146 of them were closed. I think that gives us an idea of how dramatically the problem has increased in New Zealand for about 10 years but has particularly escalated over the last 5 years. 
 I wanted to point that out because in the 1997-98 era the Rt Hon Wyatt Creech thought that it was important—at that early stage before the escalation had really occurred—to bring in the affirmative resolution process in order to have a mechanism available to combat the proliferation that he quite rightly saw would occur. The Labour Government sat around for several years before finally bringing in its amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act in about 2001-02. It certainly took quite some time to do that. So although Jim Anderton said that something should have been done in the 1990s the evidence is that as recently as 2000 only nine clandestine P laboratories had been closed by the police in New Zealand. But that number has escalated logarithmically over the last few years. 
Undoubtedly the reason we are supporting this bill is the inclusion of the main provisions in Parts 1 and 2: the presumption of supply matters to be amended by Order in Council the presumption of supply quantity for methamphetamine the adding of a Ministry of Justice official to the membership of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs the creation of new offences of importing and exporting precursor substances the creation of powers of search and seizure without warrant for ephedrine and pseudoephedrine and the measure allowing for the controlled delivery of precursor substances. The National Party is hugely aware of the illicit use of drugs and of their importation by highly sophisticated gangs which are ready to change their methods and formulae in relation to those very dangerous controlled drugs. If a drug appears on the schedules the gangs will come up with another one and therefore it is necessary to use every method we can possibly find to combat the sophisticated nature of illicit drug manufacture and the lengths to which New Zealand and international gangs go in order to bring drugs into this country. That is a hugely serious and worrying concern for us. 
But it is also hugely concerning that the Hon Jim Anderton brought in the amendment that has now become Part 3 of this bill which also covers the affirmative resolution procedure that the Regulations Review Committee has pointed out must be used wisely by the New Zealand Parliament. I reiterate what that committee stated about it: “The amendment of primary legislation by an Order in Council is commonly referred to as the ‘Henry VIII’ clause and is regarded as undesirable because it allows the executive the power to override Parliament. Such powers should be granted by Parliament rarely and with strict controls.” I also point out what the committee further stated: “In our view the classification of restricted substances is a matter of significant policy that should be dealt with by primary legislation.” It is for that reason that the National Party is not supporting Part 3 as brought in somewhat belatedly by the Hon Jim Anderton. The proper consideration it deserves has not been given to it. 
There is no doubt that the National Party recognises the problem of party pills and the use of some substances such as “BZP” or benzylpiperazine as being one of great concern. But we have made a commitment to bring in well-thought-out well-considered legislation within the first 12 months of the new Government that will very likely come into office within the next few months ahead. I think it is also absolutely important to reiterate that the affirmative resolution process should be used with great care as the Regulations Review Committee has recommended. That recommendation has been ignored by the Labour Party and by Jim Anderton and his so-called coalition party the Progressive Party. I think that is very very serious. I also think it is important to point out what the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs concluded about benzylpiperazine. It stated that there was insufficient information available on which to base a recommendation to classify those substances in the schedules of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. 
I again absolutely emphasise the fact that the New Zealand National Party does regard those substances as being a very serious issue. Many of us have children and teenagers who talk continually about the proliferation of party pills herbal pills and related substances and there is no doubt that those substances are becoming logarithmically more available. It is because of the highly explicit nature of how they are being advertised now and of how they appear to be being used by many young people in New Zealand that Jim Anderton has woken up suddenly and said that we must do something about it—and what is being done about it has been brought into Parliament very much against the wise advice of the Regulations Review Committee. 
It is also important to point out that the expert advisory committee did express concern about the increased supply of party pills through a whole variety of mechanisms—over the Internet through countercultural retailers and more recently through liquor outlets service stations and dairies. We want to make sure that well-considered legislation is brought to Parliament regarding that. Time and time again we see the Labour Government bring in hurried legislation under urgency just like today that will undoubtedly have to be re-amended at a later time. That is why we believe it is so important to have well-considered legislation. I was deeply concerned to hear the Hon Jim Anderton make light of the affirmative resolution procedure and say it is not a serious procedure. It is a very serious procedure. Indeed it goes to the heart of our democracy and it is a great worry when we have the Labour Party and the coalition party the Progressive Party making light of that procedure. 
The National Party does support the bill but is very concerned about Part 3. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 That was a rather confused speech made by the National Party spokesperson on health. Partly it shows that there have been a lot of changes to the Health Committee. 
I acknowledge at the beginning of my third reading speech the valuable contribution made by Lynda Scott. I know that this bill will probably be the last bill she is involved in. Lynda Scott was there when Wyatt Creech brought in his first amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act and she well understood about the Order in Council and the expeditious scheduling. I think it has been a confused issue ever since. Today’s debate by Opposition members has shown me how confused those members are about the value of the Order in Council mechanism. Wyatt Creech brought it in very sensibly. We use it very moderately understanding the need for flexibility and the ability to expeditiously schedule. Yet National has argued against the use of the Order in Council mechanism. It is quite bizarre. 
This bill was a difficult one. It was very very complex actually because of the statutory framework we are working with with legislation on controlled drugs then in came the issue of licit drugs with Supplementary Order Paper 298 which was referred to us in November. It was not a knee-jerk reaction. It was referred to us in November as a result of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs not as a result of the Associate Minister of Health panicking and looking for answers out there to please the electorate. 
The Misuse of Drugs Act and subsequent amendments are rather out of date and do require a major overhaul. We do need to look at how we regulate both controlled and licit drugs. I believe that the Order in Council process showed it is still a robust mechanism and very useful in terms of expeditious scheduling. It does involve the House it does involve Cabinet and it does involve the select committee. I find it a rigorous process. It is not lightly used at all. It was sad to see the Opposition therefore voting against Part 3. 
There is a challenge to us about the mix of drugs and we took it very seriously. I believe that members of the Health Committee those who understood the original Misuse of Drugs Act came up with a very sensible solution in terms of where we are in the electoral cycle. They knew that there was no way that our concerns about benzylpiperazine and where it stood in our public health framework would be addressed at this time in Parliament and it was not good enough to say we would develop our own stand-alone bill. I do not think that is a sensible solution because it means yet another drug bill without our looking at the whole drug framework. 
A lot of preparatory work was done. When we look at the way tobacco regulation and tobacco control were brought in in 2003 we see that we have carried over those regulatory provisions into this bill. Members do not seem to have read this bill very closely at all. We have set up a second schedule of criteria that the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs has to look at and take into account before the Order in Council process is put in motion. We have put in some very sensible issues about the practicalities of enforcement requirements and having the right incentives in place so that we do not push people into using another illicit drug that has come on to the market. We looked at sale and supply issues. Katherine Rich pointed out the very interesting issue that in this bill we are talking about restricting sale to 18-year-olds and not promoting these social herbal highs to under-18-year-olds yet a contradictory piece of legislation about the drinking age has been introduced. This bill allows a voluntary code restrictions on the location of where sales can be made and provisions for advertising labelling and co-packaging as well as manufacturing standards. 
I think we have done very very well with this bill given the complexity of the issues and the timing of the electoral cycle. I am proud to support this bill. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the third reading of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3). I will say straight off that New Zealand First supports this bill which might surprise some people on the Government benches. However I have been asked on behalf of my caucus to extend our appreciation to the Health Committee and in particular to the officials for the time they spent with the committee ensuring that it was totally informed about the many aspects of this legislation and about the inclusion of legal and illegal substances in the same legislation. 
New Zealand First was disappointed that the Supplementary Order Paper submitted by my colleague Barbara Stewart was not supported. However New Zealand First did recommend that these groups of substances be treated in the same way as all other controlled drugs and included on the appropriate schedule. I note that during the earlier debate in the Committee stage the Green Party member made light of our suggestion particularly in terms of products like Coca-Cola. I say to the Green member and indeed to other members of this House that if warnings were applied to the sale of products like Coca-Cola then the general public would be aware of the dangers of the particular drugs contained in them. We believe that harm minimisation as a strategy does not address the issues and needs of those most at risk from abuse of these substances. 
So while we support the Supplementary Order Paper put in by the honourable member Jim Anderton we view it as a first step only. New Zealand First believes that there should be no softening of drug laws for these new designer drugs. We believe that these party pills should be classified as controlled drugs. 
We would have liked to see these substances guaranteed as harmless. We believe that until this occurs they should not be legally available for sale. We look forward to the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs completing further research into the potential harms of these psychoactive substances. The manufacturers of these products claim that they are safe and that they are keeping people away from the more dangerous amphetamines. In fact we believe that by creating a culture in our young people that it is acceptable and even desirable to take some pills to get high we are increasing the number of our young people who would dare to try harder drugs. 
The real answer to substance abuse is education against the pill-popping habit that party pills have so dramatically created. We are told that these products are safe if they are taken according to the instructions—that is not to take them with alcohol and to follow the recommended dosage. At best this argument is flawed because a large number of people do not comply with these instructions. Even with prescription medicines where the patient receives verbal instructions from the prescribing doctor and then from the pharmacist compliance is not always guaranteed. 
Add this to the fact that these products are designed and promoted for use at parties where alcohol is mandatory and where there is pressure to take extra doses and it takes a very strong-willed young person to resist. Compliance under these circumstances would be well below the pharmaceutical average. Because of that we may see many more people hospitalised. 
I was pleased to read in a recent letter from the Social Tonics Association that it is recommending limiting the amount of benzylpiperazine contained in each pill. That appears to be a sensible measure. We are aware that a small number of operators have been basically exploiting the unregulated market and producing low-quality products with variable amounts of benzylpiperazine without warnings or labels. The level of benzylpiperazine can be two to three times higher than the dosages outlined as potentially dangerous by the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs. 
We are also very pleased with the new offences created by this bill. This bill has needed the attention of the House as both the police and customs have needed the support of the law in their fight against the misuse of drugs and this bill provides for that. New offences are created that will close the loopholes that currently exist. Any legislation that helps with the early apprehension of those involved in the misuse of drugs must be good for our country. 
One of the other reasons why my caucus colleagues and I support this bill is that we are looking to the future and in particular to the next generation of members of our families. We would like to think that we have been responsible for putting in place legislation that will help to protect the forthcoming generations from the dangers that the misuse of illicit drugs will cause to our young people. In conclusion New Zealand First supports the passing of this bill. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to speak to the third reading of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3). We will be opposing this bill for a number of reasons which I will come to. This legislation is very untidy. ACT would have liked to be in the position of supporting this bill as it stood in the first instance with just Parts 1 and 2. We agree that there is room for great improvement with the control of possession and supply of dangerous drugs. The bill’s creation of new offences of importing and exporting precursor substances creating powers of search and seizure without warrant for ephedrine and pseudoephedrine and allowing controlled deliveries of precursor substances should in fact occur and we agree with that. But we object strongly to Part 3 which was added at the select committee stage by Supplementary Order Paper. 
It is was interesting to hear some of the comments from the chair of the Health Committee Steve Chadwick when she spoke. She said there was confusion on the Opposition side of the House particularly on the use of the Order in Council and the affirmative resolution process. There is no confusion. We have talked about that long and hard. We had very strong submissions from the Regulations Review Committee which unfortunately have by and large been ignored in the final instance. ACT is very unhappy about that. We thought the advice we received was very good and we were most unhappy that the advice was not followed through. 
As I say we would have liked to support the bill. We did support Parts 1 and 2 through the whole process both at the select committee level and also here in the Committee stage. But we cannot support the overall bill because of the untidiness of the legislation and the time pressure that was put on for it to be passed. Here we are yet again in another period of urgency rushing through legislation that would have been much better much tidier and much more effective in the final outcome had that time pressure not been put on the entire process. 
As I say we would have liked to be in a position to support the bill but in the final instance it promotes draconian powers in relation to substances that may well be little more insidious or addictive than alcohol nicotine or many other harmful but not necessarily catastrophic substances. That should give us pause for thought. I refer to Part 3 which was added at the select committee stage. To be fair to Mr Anderson it was very good that the Supplementary Order Paper came to the select committee in plenty of time so that the full parliamentary process could be gone through and submissions could be made. But I think the fact that it is tacked on to a very rigorous bill when it should have been a stand-alone bill is a retrograde step. I do hope that as time progresses that will in fact happen so that the dangerous substances that as everybody acknowledges cause great harm to society and particularly to our young people can be dealt with properly and the provisions in Part 3 can be dealt with in a proper and efficient manner. 
When the Supplementary Order Paper first came to the select committee it had a blank schedule. There is certainly no historical provision for that to happen and for the committee members to have a blank schedule in front of them with no idea except from guesswork as to what exactly might go on it was unacceptable. To allay the committee’s fears the benzylpiperazine substances were put on that schedule and it did seem as if that was just a ploy to allay the fears of many select committee members. 
As I say the legislation was very untidy. This was acknowledged and has been acknowledged further more informally by many members of the select committee. None of us were really happy with that process and many of us felt that the officials were put under extreme time constraints in coming forward with legislation that would meet the time requirements as opposed to the proper process being gone through and good legislation that is rigorous and that can easily be upheld by the courts where the direction is to be given. That should have been allowed to happen and did not. 
Perhaps our biggest fears were those I referred to with regard to the Regulations Review Committee. The Regulations Review Committee has always given us very rigorous and very good advice but by and large on this occasion this advice has been ignored. That committee said to us that it was unhappy about the use of the affirmative resolution process and it warned that that process should not proliferate—something that at the time all the Health Committee members agreed with. It considered that there should be compelling reasons for applying the affirmative resolution process when primary legislation is being amended in respect of serious offences. The Regulations Review Committee also noted that the affirmative resolution process is justifiable in limited and exceptional circumstances including where there is a need for expeditious change. 
I note that I wrote a letter to the Health Committee in September 2002 outlining problems with particularly the sale and purchase of benzylpiperazine products by many young people some as young as 12 13 or 14 at places like Star Marts. At that time the select committee did not seem to be the least bit worried about those products and my letter was passed on to the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs. I felt at the time that that was really just to pacify me. Suddenly now there is an Order in Council process in place. The nature of this matter has hardly I would say been expeditious. That is just one example of what can happen when the Order in Council and the affirmative action process is put in place. 
The Regulations Review Committee also noted that although the affirmative resolution procedure allows a truncated legislative process it considers that there are considerable drawbacks. In particular the procedure allows significant matters of policy and principle to be dealt with in delegated legislation rather than in primary legislation. We have heard other parties raise this issue here today. It allows a limited time for select committee scrutiny—not the great time as in the normal process as Steve Chadwick indicated—which may be insufficient for public consultation or for substantial consideration of the policy rationale. In short it should be used in extreme or very limited circumstances only. The legislation now allows for this process to be undergone in many and varied circumstances. 
In particular I mention new section 4(1AA) inserted by clause 5(2). ACT finds it bizarre that people’s liberties will be able to removed by ministerial decree—the Order in Council process—while all the machinery of Parliament will be needed to reduce regulation. There are no historical precedents for this action at all and to allow the extra regulation of substances by Order in Council but to have the downgrading if you like of those same substances or any other substances on a schedule allowed to happen only by the full machinations of the parliamentary process is really quite bizarre. 
Quite how we reached that point is very questionable. We should either have the same process both ways or the full parliamentary process both ways. Anybody who has any knowledge of the legislative process looking from beyond our own battlegrounds here today would find this absolutely extraordinary. 
ACT New Zealand opposes this legislation because of many process matters. As I say we would have liked to support the bill for the benefit that Parts 1 and 2 will bring to the control and supply of serious methamphetamine-type medications that have brought great problems to our society—we all acknowledge that. We think that Part 3 should have been stand-alone legislation and we are very loath to see substances that have yet to be proven to be very harmful lumped in with very dangerous drugs. Most important we worry about the proliferating use of the affirmative action process through Order in Council. For those reasons we oppose this legislation. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I stand to support the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) in its third reading debate on behalf of the Green Party because in principle it does go in the direction the Green Party says that drug policy should go. At the same time I acknowledge that it has been laced with a number of toxic adulterants partly at the hands of the “UFO Party” but the honourable Minister has to share some responsibility for the severe problems that remain in the bill. Before I go on to the substance of the bill I would like to quickly address Mr Paraone’s comment about Coca-Cola. I agree that the labelling of Coca-Cola and some sensible restrictions on its use would be beneficial but I am not sure that making it R18 would be particularly useful. However I thank him for those comments. 
We support the bill for a number of reasons. The first one is that it allows control of a range of substances that are currently unregulated. That can include any mixture preparation or article manufactured for the primary purpose of inducing a psychoactive effect. Of course the bill has been introduced with benzylpiperazine specifically in that category but it is open to other substances to be included. The bill addresses the situation of a growing industry that is currently unregulated around which there are growing concerns and that needs some regulations to be put in place. As the Hon Jim Anderton said there is no evidence that benzylpiperazine causes a great deal of problems but it is sensible to take a precautionary approach and put in place some sensible restrictions just to dampen down its use a bit. 
The bill adds a new schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act. That was originally a Greens’ suggestion and we are very pleased that it has been taken up. It has to be an amendment by way of inserting a new schedule in the Act because otherwise we would need new legislation every time a new substance came to our attention. We already know for a fact that piperazines that are not benzylpiperazines—there are other forms of piperazines—are being sold in shops right now. Those piperazines are not included in this bill currently. We also know that other substances that are not even in the piperazine range of drugs are being sold manufactured and researched now. So we clearly need something that we can put new substances into fairly simply and that is what this bill provides. 
What does the bill do in terms of restrictions? It puts in place things like age limits restrictions on advertising an assurance that there are quality manufacturing standards and an assurance that there is adequate labelling so that people can make properly informed choices. That is all absolutely sensible. The industry which by and large has been responsible in the way it has dealt with the sale and manufacture of its products has been calling for enforceable powers in that regard. There are cowboy operators particularly in Christchurch who have no regard for the voluntary code of the industry and who need to be brought into line. Gangsters are getting involved. That is the problem and it gives us a taste of where the issue would go if we chose to prohibit the industry rather than to restrict it by some sensible regulation. We would see an increase in gangsterism in the industry and we want to avoid that. The Greens remain concerned about the unrestricted enforcement powers. There is no need for a search warrant and there is no time limit in terms of giving stuff back. Businesses could easily be put out of business on the whim of a health officer or police officer and we think that that is a serious issue. 
The Greens support the bill because it introduces some changes to the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs in particular by adding a Ministry of Justice representative. That is a much-needed change. That person can give advice on the justice implications of the classification of a drug as illegal. It is an area of expertise that has previously been lacking on the committee so we welcome that. We remain concerned at two things. One is the confusion around the different criteria that the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs applies when considering whether to schedule something as A B or C class as opposed to D class. We think that that makes absolutely no sense. There should be one set of criteria. Substances should be looked at in accordance with all of them and then the recommendations would simply drop out of that. The situation is entirely illogical at the moment. The other concern we have is about the lack of ability for either the Health Committee or the House to recommend amendments to notices of motion under the affirmative resolution procedure. This House needs to address that because it means we must either reject or accept the Minister’s recommendation. For us to reject a recommendation would be a pretty substantial slap in the face for a Minister and members are unwilling to do that without very very good reason. But there may be good reasons to tweak a recommendation by a small amount and there should be provision for that. 
We support the introduction in the bill of a new offence around the import and export of precursors. We support that because the Greens actually said during the reclassification of methamphetamine that the Government needed to focus on precursors. We are pleased to see that happening but once again we are concerned about the enforcement powers and the provision of search without warrant powers around precursors. Search without warrant powers are draconian powers of search and seizure. They should be used very rarely and with real justification. When the Health Committee invited the officials to say why we needed to provide search without warrant powers their explanations just were not convincing. The Greens are concerned about the proliferation of search without warrant powers made by this Parliament. It has happened in a number of Acts including the Local Government Act which has search without warrant powers relating to alcohol prohibition areas. Those things are obviously a breach of New Zealand Bill of Rights Act guarantees to be free from unreasonable search and seizure and the Greens remain unhappy about that. 
So the Greens support the bill with some concerns. Before I finish I will touch on some of the broader issues around the bill. Drug policy like law and order is a fruitful perennial for politicians. I end with a plea really for more evidence-based decision-making when it comes to policy making by this Parliament. I expressed concern already in the Committee stage and at the second reading about the “UFO” amendment that allows the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs to recommend on evidence the reclassification of a substance if it increases the penalties but not if it decreases them. I thank Heather Roy for her quite clear exposition of the offensiveness of that provision. It is a serious thing—it states that we will pay regard to evidence if it makes punishment more serious but not if it reduces punishment. That is in line with the recently launched drug policy of United Future which states that drug classification should be constantly reviewed and monitored to ensure it complies with the available evidence but that the party will totally ignore any evidence that does not point to harsher penalties. United Future states that quite blatantly. I have never seen a party policy state so blatantly that the party will ignore evidence that does not fit its preconceptions. 
My concern is that that unashamed contempt for evidence and information that does not fit United Future’s preconceptions currently influences drug policy in this Parliament by way of the confidence and supply agreement with the Government. That is a serious issue for this country and this Parliament to think about. I know that United Future will be reduced to irrelevance after the election so I am not really saying this to have a swipe at it. I am saying it more to members of the House and political parties in general. My hope quite genuinely is that political parties and members are genuinely committed to evidence-based decision-making particularly when it comes to drug policy and to supporting policies that work and can be shown to work—policies that reduce the harms associated with drug use. I would have thought that that surely was the goal of us all. I find it hard to believe that anyone at all in this House wants to increase the harms associated with drug use but my worry is that often that is what we do as an unintended consequence of ill-informed policy-making. 
In that regard I end by reinforcing the plea of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs of a number of members of the select committee—it was echoed by Judy Turner from United Future—and of a number of members of the drug treatment world that the Misuse of Drugs Act be reviewed and overhauled. Again I thank Steve Chadwick for her comments around the problems of that Act as it stands. It is a mess—an absolute mess. It is confusing inconsistent and fragmented and we need to take that very seriously. The Greens hope that in the next Parliament we may see the development of a drug policy framework that is genuinely integrated consistent and most important based on the evidence about what actually works. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak to the third reading of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3). At this third reading I would like to take some time to reflect on why we are bothering to do this. There are those who believe that prohibition should give way to regulation and that prohibition is a lost cause and a flawed approach to managing drug use and drug abuse in our country. I have been accused of being obsessed with cannabis prohibition—and I suspect that it is true. Maybe I have just spent too long in New Zealand classrooms along with thousands of other teachers and tried to invest my time and energy in helping kids meet their potential. Maybe I have grown tired of seeing some of our brightest become apathetic and throw away good years in favour of risk behaviours that see them cut classes be inattentive when they are in class and achieving at decreasing levels that are well below their ability. 
They become vague late overly egocentric and insensitive to others. Their parents and friends see outbursts and mood swings. At that stage parents often believe they have a difficult teen. To those families we currently recommend harm minimisation. That sort of means that we will teach them how to work out what level of brain damage is right for them. 
 For a percentage of young people the situation will get a lot worse. Clinicians do not refer to this deterioration as addiction; they call it neurotransmitter deficiency syndrome. Authors Tom Scott and Trevor Grice describe it by saying: “If an individual’s vats containing the chemicals responsible for calm and moderation are nearly empty and at the same time the vats containing the chemicals for irritation and rage are full the chances of responding sensibly to a minor setback or a mild confrontation are much more remote.” 
So does the law send a message? Yes it does. Even if one chooses to ignore the message the law establishes a commonly held disapproval of certain behaviours. All law is ignored and flouted by a certain sector of society. That does not make it irrelevant. 
In a famous social experiment that was often referred to when I was at teachers college a group of university students were employed to help with an experiment unaware that their behaviour was the real subject of the experiment. They were put in white laboratory coats and asked to modify the behaviour of some other folk by way of an electric shock. They could not see their subjects but they could hear their responses. Not only were they required to administer the shocks but also they had to increase the voltage for repeated wrong responses—actors were responding appropriately. 
The outcome was that it was discovered that as long as this behaviour was sanctioned they would continue to inflict pain and they would even go to the level of taking somebody’s life. One or two did query whether they should continue but after they received affirming nods they kept going. 
I mention this because legal sanctioning does have consequences in people’s choices and behaviours. We must be very careful about the legislative messages we send. However I want to make it clear that United Future does not believe that prohibition on its own is the total answer or the single strategy that will work. We accept that we need a raft of health and education strategies—and parent education in particular—to address the tragic loss of potential that we currently have in our nation. 
Mr Tanczos claimed that cannabis does not kill. I want to tell members about a friend of mine whose funeral I went to not long ago. He was a very talented young man who did not stay around long enough to discover that he had just got straight As in his course at polytech. He was a talented artist. However with his talent he was mentally unstable and had some potential for mental health problems—very manageable ones if he had stayed off the alcohol and the cannabis. However he chose to ignore the support around him. For him cannabis was a gateway drug and he hanged himself in his parents’ garage. 
The open casket at his funeral gave his friends the opportunity for a bit of a joke. They put a cannabis reefer between his fingers. They were not my kids so I could not take it out but I was angry because they had overlooked the fact that one of the reasons we were there—one of the reasons he was in that casket—was cannabis. For me it is quite a personal issue because I have seen too many young people whom I care about deeply whose lives have been detrimentally affected. We as legislators need to make sure that we send a very strong message. We need to keep the human face of drug abuse before us all the time. 
I do not know whether this has happened to other members but I have talked to parents who were relieved that their child had been arrested—appalled that they had reached the state in which they wanted their child to be arrested. Parents have said to me that their child’s life was saved because he or she went to jail. That is an appalling feeling for a parent and having to sit through that with a parent is pretty appalling. 
So we must make sure that we do not shy away from our responsibilities—that we do all we can in policy and in legislation to make sure that young people who are our country’s future are protected from their own poor choices at times and from the pressure they feel to be part of a group. 
As I have said we support Governments having the opportunity through the Order in Council provisions to respond quickly to a crisis in the drug world and we are very happy about that. But as the Regulations Review Committee recommends we must use that mechanism sparingly. We were very clear that when a crisis is before us those provisions should be used. Downgrading a substance is not a crisis; it is a policy matter. We would like to see the public not just the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs have a chance to submit on such matters. We do not believe that downgrading a substance constitutes the kind of crisis that would necessitate the use of Order in Council provisions. 
I have looked up the expert advisory committee’s actual advice on party pills because that has been a huge part of this bill. At the time when it made its recommendations the committee believed that there was no suitable schedule in the Misuse of Drugs Act. It believed that the Minister for Food Safety should be requested to consider the appropriateness of permitting the chemical benzylpiperazine to be sold as a dietary supplement. It recommended that the Minister direct the Ministry of Health to conduct further research into the potential harms associated with the use of benzylpiperazine and it recommended that the Minister direct the Ministry of Health to investigate the possibility of gathering prevalence data on benzylpiperazine via the introduction of routine toxicology screening by community laboratories. 
Lots of recommendations came out that need to be followed through on and we would be very supportive of seeing those recommendations followed up very quickly. We are keen to see the end of the legal nonsense that currently forces us through time pressures to regulate legal substances along with illegal substances. We think that this creates a whole lot of legal nonsense that will get us into trouble in the future. We are therefore very keen to see continue the ongoing work that is needed on this but we are happy to support the third reading of the bill. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I rise with a little bit of nostalgia which was created by Steve Chadwick when she mentioned that this bill will probably be the last major piece of legislation I will speak on in this House. I have thoroughly enjoyed being a member of the Health Committee. It has been one of the best parts of the time I have spent in Parliament. I will have my valedictory speech in which to say all these things but I want to say now that working with Steve Chadwick was great. The members of the Health Committee have always tried very hard to work across parties to get good legislation for New Zealand. Of course at times one does not agree with a political part of a bill but most of the time we have worked very well together. I have thoroughly enjoyed that time. 
Steve Chadwick said that National had a confused position on this bill. It is not confused at all. The position has been very clear. We support this bill. We certainly support the affirmative resolution process to be used for class A B and C drugs. What we did not find acceptable was the way the Supplementary Order Paper was included as a new part Part 3 “Restricted substances”. We know that this area has been complex. The select committee and the advisers grappled with it to try to find a way to fit it into the bill. Even the Associate Minister of Health acknowledged that it has not been a good process and that we need a stand-alone bill. So I do not think there is anything unclear about what we have been saying today. It has been very clear indeed. 
What concerns me is the Greens’ contributions to the debate on this bill. I was on the inquiry into cannabis and I remember very clearly what Nandor Tanczos had to say during that inquiry. I see that he is supporting the process to regulate benzylpiperazine. Mr Tanczos was associated with a store in Queen Street where these drugs are sold. He knows a great deal about them. Yes he wants the industry to come under legal auspices whereby it is controlled because that would take other operators out of the business leaving those who are legally selling these drugs to over-18-year-olds to make more money. He wanted cannabis regulated in the same way. He wanted it decriminalised and made available to those over-18-year-olds. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: That’s untrue. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: I heard that argument many times. What worries me is that the Greens supported Labour during the time of the cannabis inquiry and we know that the Green Party gets some of its vote from the legalise cannabis group. That party will continue to push for a softening of the law around cannabis. 
Mr Tanczos has changed his mind. He has become a dad and I think that does change people. When one becomes a parent one starts seeing the world a little differently— 
Simon Power 
: Through sleepy eyes. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: Yes but I think he already had those. As parents we start thinking about what the effects would be on our children. There is still a great deal of fear out in the community that a Labour-Green coalition would push to have a slackening of the drug laws. 
Regarding the expeditious scheduling that we see in Part 3 there was concern expressed at the Health Committee that cannabis could be moved from the A B and C classification on to the list of restricted substances—that this legislation would provide a mechanism for that. Mr Tanczos talked about having the experts involved. We have the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs advising the Minister at this point. The membership of the committee could be changed. The membership could be changed to comprise people who have a much more liberal view of drugs in this country. That would mean that we would see a loosening and a reduction in classification. 
If that happened I would be extremely worried as would most mums and dads in this country. We would not want to see any change to the law around cannabis. I sat on that select committee inquiry. We went from one end of the country to the other it cost a huge amount of money and we came to the conclusion that there should be no change. But that was not the position of the Greens right the way though the inquiry. 
National supports adding a Ministry of Justice member to the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs. That was an oversight when we debated the first amendment Act. The process was set up by Wyatt Creech and was brought in because of the Ecstasy and Fantasy issues at the time. Those drugs had been introduced into New Zealand and the people who produced them changed the chemical structure just slightly in order to avoid the law. Everybody agreed that we needed a very fast process—we wanted it to be a 1-month process—to be able to put those drugs on to the schedule and to stop those who wished to prey on our young people and cause their deaths all for the sake of money. 
We fully support this bill which provides for the regulation of the precursors of P methamphetamine. People can be prosecuted if they bring in large quantities of cold remedies which have ephedrine and pseudoephedrine in them to try to set up meth labs and produce P. P is the most serious drug issue facing the country at the moment. There has been a lot of effort to crack down on it. Just one tablet can cause significant harm. We saw a similar wave of the use of LSD in the 1970s. People saw too many of their friends end up in psychiatric hospitals due to the use of that medication. Talented young New Zealanders’ lives were ruined. Some survived some committed suicide but many had significant mental damage. Hopefully people will see enough of their friends around them significantly damaged by P to ensure that once again it will not become a drug of choice amongst our young people and they will realise the harm that just one tablet can do to them if they are susceptible. 
The longitudinal studies that are being done on our young people in Christchurch and Dunedin are interesting. The Dunedin study is especially interesting as it shows that genetic precursors mean that some people are much more susceptible to drugs and alcohol abuse when adverse events happen. One has to ask why some people get through them and others do not. It has been shown that the genetic predisposition of some people plus an adverse event—that is nature plus nurture or the environment they are in plus their genetic make-up—are what make some people much much more susceptible. 
We fully support making sure that ephedrine and pseudoephedrine cannot be brought into the country in large supply. We support the change to the onus of proof in terms of people who have needles in their possession to improve the needle exchange programme. We will be voting for the bill in its third reading stage. 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 As another National member speaking in this debate I too rise to voice support for the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3). A lot of good changes are being made in the bill that will assist officials in their battle against drugs like P which is surely one of the biggest challenges facing our community at the moment. As many members of the House will have also found when they spoke with the police and looked at the statistics I know the reason that we have had such an increase in violent crime in the country is largely attributable to the use of P. Although the names and ingredients of those drugs will change the issues of how to regulate and put in place legislation to control them will remain the same for successive Governments. The issue for us is to put in place good law that will do its best to control illegal drugs and to put in place a framework that makes it quite clear to people what is right and wrong. 
It was interesting to hear the Minister Jim Anderton talk about the bill because he got himself into a position whereby anybody who voiced any alternative to or concern with a provision was suddenly presented as being pro-drugs. The Minister does not have a monopoly on the concern about drugs in the community. The Minister is not the only member of Parliament who is concerned about what is happening in some of our communities as a result of various drugs. That does not take away our right to speak out about concerns about the law and to put forward some changes that we think will produce better law for the country. The concerns that we have voiced as a party basically related to the use of the affirmative resolution procedure. We totally understand the use of those procedures for illegal drugs that are classified as A B or C but we raised some concerns about the use of similar provisions when it came to substances that were legal. That was the main reason that we voted against Part 3. 
One of the points that the Minister did not address in any part of the debate was the apparent inconsistency in his thinking in bringing Part 3 into the main part of the Government’s bill. Although the Minister kept saying that it was a Government bill we all know that Part 3 was a result of the Minister bringing in Supplementary Order Paper 298 in his name—a large change to the law—and attaching it a bit like a patchwork quilt to another piece of law. On the one hand the Progressives say that we are in a situation where we need to regulate benzylpiperazine—one of those changes is to make it quite clear that those substances can be sold to 18-year-olds—yet on the other hand one of their main thrusts in bringing another bill to the House is to look at raising the age at which young people can purchase alcohol. On the one hand we are saying that 18-year-olds have the ability to make decisions to act responsibly and to apply their thought processes to the purchase of party pills and herbal highs but on the other hand we are saying that they are not responsible and they do not have the ability to make a choice when it comes to making up their minds about whether they want a glass of beer. I think there is a real inconsistency there. 
In my view we see hypocritical thinking and no logic when we look at the two main pieces of legislation the Progressives have brought to this Parliament. Basically they are saying different things about the ability of young people to make up their minds and apply their own thought processes to some decisions they make in their everyday lives. Although I challenged the Minister on that he was not able to get up and explain himself—to say why he was pushing for the age at which one can purchase alcohol to rise to 20 yet remained perfectly happy for people to stroll into a shop and purchase a party pill a herbal high or whatever else at the age of 18. Certainly there is a contradiction there. 
I think there are some great things in this bill. When we talk to customs officials and the police we find that there has been a huge amount of frustration about the inability of officials to be able to nab people who turn up at our borders with caseloads of cough medicines that contain ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. People were able to point to what looked like extraordinarily large quantities of medicines and to say that they were bringing them in for their personal use. Well no one involved believed that but the law did not give customs officials enough tools in their tool-box to be able to deal with those situations with greater clarity. So it is good that this bill lays out some very detailed specifications for how searches can take place and how they may be executed within officials’ daily procedures. We have lists in the legislation for everything from strip-searches to rub-down searches. There seems to be a lot of detail but in fact when we are dealing with people who will do whatever they can to get off a charge or who have lawyers who will do everything they can to get their clients off charges we need to be incredibly specific about the technical parts of this bill. So I am hoping we have done our work on this bill and that there will not be any loopholes when the legislation is fully in place. 
There are some good initiatives to make it easier for people to use needle exchanges and to not be in a position where they feel that the law does not allow them to carry syringes and take part in their own rehabilitation without being nervous about being charged for having or without having to demonstrate proof of why they have particular items in their possession. 
One of the things that is very clear is that we as a Parliament will continue to face these sorts of issues. The types of pills and drugs will change. The next generation and the scientists out there the backroom scientists who try to work out new combinations in order to get around these laws will continue to do so. The challenge for us is to keep ahead of them and to ensure that all parts of the public service do their bit to make sure we minimise the amount of drug use in our community. 
One of the things that this bill does not deal with is the issue of policing. I think it is a real shame that the police put in for additional resources in order to keep on top of methamphetamine laboratories and received only a small portion of the amount of resource they felt they needed to be able to keep on top of the problem. 
We have thrown up some interesting inconsistencies and I look forward to the debate on the second bill brought to this House by the Progressives. I will be asking them why they think it is OK that 18-year-olds can buy party pills and herbal highs but they are not trustworthy enough to buy beer or to make a choice about whether they want to have a glass of wine. It seems to me there is more concern about party pills and herbal highs than the Minister gives the public credit for. So there are some interesting inconsistencies on the part of the Progressives. 
I am glad to stand and support this bill. I think it will go some way towards assisting the Customs Service and the police to ensure they have more tools in their tool-box to deal with those New Zealanders who want to break the law. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 107 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 6; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Bill read a third time.