Anderton Jim: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee Third Reading 
Anderton Jim: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21501] 
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.