Motions — Misuse of Drugs (Classification of Ephedrine and Pseudoephedrine) Order 2003—Approval

, on behalf of the Associate Minister of Health: I move, That, pursuant to section 4A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, this House approve the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of Ephedrine and Pseudoephedrine) Order 2003 made under section 4 of that Act. This order demonstrates this coalition’s commitment to a National Drug Policy that targets drug use in three ways: through supply control, demand reduction, and problem limitation.

The illicit manufacture of methamphetamine from the precursor substances of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine is a significant issue in many parts of New Zealand. This order will further develop the Government’s strong response to the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine from these precursors. Firstly, it will provide a significant deterrent to those who are trying to import pseudoephedrine and ephedrine for the manufacture of methamphetamine. Secondly, it will give enforcement agencies better legislative tools with which to combat the illicit use of these substances. It will also place a higher priority on them for enforcement agencies. Thirdly, it will maintain access to those useful, effective, and safe therapeutic substances for legitimate users.

This order will make the substances pseudoephedrine and ephedrine class C5 controlled drugs, except in circumstances where pseudoephedrine products are currently pharmacy-only medicines. Those products will become class C3 controlled drugs, and currently officials are consulting the industry over regulations to clarify their classification. That classification will make it illegal to import those products without a licence, and will significantly increase the penalties for illegally importing those precursors for illicit use in methamphetamine manufacture.

I thank the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs for its examination of the evidence on those drugs, and its recommendations to the Minister on their appropriate classification. I also thank the Health Committee for its prompt consideration of this order, which is not the only action the Government has taken in its effort to control dangerous drugs.

The Government is also undertaking a number of initiatives to stop the diversion of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine into illicit methamphetamine manufacture. For example, police, the National Drug Intelligence Bureau, and pharmacists have cooperated in minimising the success of those who shop for over-the-counter pseudoephedrine products on behalf of methamphetamine manufacturers. That measure has met with much success, and the self-medicating industry association has brought to our attention a 21 percent decrease in pharmacy sales of pseudoephedrine products in the last 18 months. We are now back to the December 1994 level of pseudoephedrine sales.

Secondly, Cabinet has also agreed to changes to the Misuse of Drugs Act, which will increase police and customs power in relation to precursor substances, which include pseudoephedrine and ephedrine. An importation offence for precursors will also be added to the Act. Under those changes, the police and customs will have warrant-less search and seizure powers in relation to pseudoephedrine and ephedrine.

I strongly endorse the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of Ephedrine and Pseudoephedrine) Order 2003. I hope to see this order come into force soon to complement all the other efforts currently being put in place.

It is with pleasure that I speak on the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of Ephedrine and Pseudoephedrine) Order 2003. The ability for those two drugs to be expeditiously scheduled is the result of work done by the National Party, because the Rt Hon Wyatt Creech as Minister of Health in the previous National Government, set up a system that allowed for the expeditious scheduling of drugs. At that time the system was set up to deal with the drugs Fantasy and Ecstasy. We know that criminals who are of a mind to try to make a huge amount of money out of the suffering of our children and younger adults by getting them addicted to drugs, will go to any length to change the chemical formula of certain drugs, and thereby escape the rules put in place to classify a drug as a class A, B, or C drug.

We all know what a slow process it can be to get legislation passed through Parliament, and by the time it is passed, the criminals, in these circumstances, will probably have changed the nature of the drug so that it is slightly different, and therefore the law no longer applies. But in this case the expeditious scheduling of drugs has allowed for a very rapid change of classification, thus allowing the New Zealand Police and the Customs Service to act. We are scheduling ephedrine and pseudoephedrine as class C drugs.

That is rather unusual, because neither of those two drugs has addictive properties in themselves. They are used for cough and cold remedies. We all know that the common cold lasts about 10 days, and nothing we do will shorten that time, apart from going to bed, taking an aspirin, and a couple of days off work—which none of us do. We know that a cold just has to outlive its time. However, we like to take medications that dry up secretions from our nose and make us feel a little bit better during that time. Pseudoephedrine is one of those substances. It dries up a runny nose. However, those drugs are able to be turned into a very dangerous substance called P. Out there in the market that drug is leading to a massive increase in violence.

The other night I was talking to someone who works at Victim Support and he told me that when visiting police cells he has seen men who have never had a criminal conviction in their life, never been involved in violence, but who have gone to parties, taken P, and ended up being violent towards taxi-drivers and the people around them, and gone home to the family and been violent. These men are losing their families and businesses as a result of using P. We see young people who are very involved in violence. We see girls who end up on the streets prostituting themselves, because of their addiction to that very addictive substance.

At the moment, in the way the law works, people who bring in large quantities of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine from overseas face a maximum fine of $500, if convicted. That is not a deterrent to those criminal gangs—not at all. We have been told that huge suitcases of those precursor drugs have been brought in through customs. This move to expeditiously schedule ephedrine and pseudoephedrine is a means to help the Customs Service and the New Zealand Police to take action on the external market to stop those drugs from being brought into this country and being turned into P.

At the Health Committee we had some concerns about the process that was being used. It was brought in just before Christmas, and the independent expert advisory committee on drugs was supposed to follow processes to have a good look at the issues before it made recommendations for changes in respect of scheduling. Before this came in, just before Christmas, we felt there had not been sufficient time to consider what that might mean. But knowing that those drugs were being turned into P, and the rampant terrible effect that was having on New Zealand, the will of the committee was such that we were prepared to agree to the expeditious scheduling of those drugs.

The problem now is that people may turn back to the internal market for supply. The other day I visited a pharmacist in Auckland who had suffered from ram raids. Even though the pharmacist has put grills across the windows, the premises are still being broken into. People are trying to get hold of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. Pharmacists have taken major steps to put those medications behind the counter, and they make people sign for medications that contain cold remedies and ephedrine or pseudoephedrine, so they can limit somebody’s ability to go around different pharmacies and buy large quantities. The only other option is to make those drugs available only on prescription. People who have a cold do not want to have to go to the doctor to get a prescription. They want to be able to treat themselves. However, the question that has to be asked is whether the limiting of the external supply will lead the manufacturers of those drugs to turn back to the internal supply.

There is an argument that we do need to have cold remedies, and ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, available in the marketplace and on the shelves, but there is also an argument that perhaps we do not need them, and that those who want those drugs for anything extraordinary or special should get them on prescription.

I remember, when I was at medical school, that two drugs were selected out of the hat that we had to study. One of them was pseudoephedrine, and I could not see any reason for having it on the market. That was quite a long time ago. Little did we know, at that time, that that drug would be used, particularly in New Zealand, to manufacture P. New Zealand does have a much bigger market for that drug than many other countries in the world. It may be that we have less market for some of the other drugs that people use—drugs of abuse—but we do have a major problem with that drug at this time.

In the 1970s people got to know that LSD was a terrible drug—that people could have flashbacks, that they could be sent into psychosis, and that it could be very addictive for some people. People stopped using it. It was not a party drug of choice any more. We sincerely hope that the young people of this country will realise that P is an extremely harmful drug, and that the House has moved expeditiously to schedule ephedrine and pseudoephedrine so that we can try to close the market on P. National supports this motion.

In speaking to the Government motion, “That, pursuant to section 4A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, this House approve the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of Ephedrine and Pseudoephedrine) Order 2003 made under section 4 of that Act.”, I feel that to classify ephedrine and pseudoephedrine as controlled drugs is not only an appropriate step but also a very vital step to make in our day and time, and in light of the issues around us in this nation regarding the use of those drugs.

The classifications recommended by the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs late last year are needed to make it illegal to import those products without a licence, and to significantly increase the penalties for people illegally importing those precursors for use in the manufacture of illicit methamphetamines.

I and my colleagues in New Zealand First believe that this is a step in the right direction, but I also believe that as it is only a step in the right direction, we have a lot further to go. I am sure everybody in the House would agree with that. I am not blaming the Government or saying that this should be the be-all and end-all of the matter. It certainly helps and it is a start, but, as I said, it is only a step in the right direction, and I believe that it does not help when our young people—and people right across the community—are receiving mixed messages.

We have a Prime Minister who agrees with decriminalisation of marijuana. We have—and I will try to be very objective here—the Green Party that wants to decriminalise marijuana. I personally believe, and my party believes and feels very strongly, that that sends out the wrong message to our community and to young people in our community. The Green Party was the only party in the House that voted against the reclassification of methamphetamine to a class A drug and wanted to keep it at its then classification, which was very disappointing and sends out a lot of mixed messages. The mixed messages do not come only from the Green Party, but also from the other things that I have just mentioned. [Interruption] Does the member send out mixed messages as well?

The effects of those drugs on crime and violence have never been clearer. That is a fact, and I am sure that even Jill Pettis would agree with me on that. The subtlety of the effects of those narcotics on the brain—

💬 Jill Pettis: What am I agreeing with?

The member is agreeing that the effects of those drugs on crime and violence have never been clearer. Surely Ms Jill Pettis should agree with that.

💬 Jill Pettis: Mrs. I’m married.

I apologise. Congratulations. The subtlety of the effects of those narcotics on the brain, and in speeding up the ageing process, are not understood by many users, but the devastation in our communities and the growth of criminal gangs certainly are. I call on this Government, not just to make little steps such as those—which are in the right direction but are still not enough—but also to introduce a four-pronged attack on this modern-day scourge. It is time we as a nation and we as a Parliament say that enough is enough, and that we even take a leaf out of Murupara’s book and declare our communities drug-free. It was encouraging to see that local community once again featuring in the New Zealand Herald yesterday on this issue.

That attack would be a community-coordinated response, as well as comprehensive drug education, policing, providing the police with the resources and the powers to bust the gangs and close down the labs, and treatment to halt repeat offending. I believe such a programme is vital for our country’s future. Just moving on the issue of reclassifying drugs will not be enough. The first part of the four-pronged attack that I have just touched on—community response—would involve community mobilisation to raise awareness of drug issues and the implementation of surveillance and reporting strategies, central funding requirements for locally administrated programmes, and regional project management—bringing together representatives from the police, health services, schools, and other agencies with local service providers, councils, and community organisations.

In addition, we would have to employ—or encourage the Government to employ—a project manager in each region to help implement the strategy. We also need to strengthen enforcement efforts by reporting hot spots and drug houses to the police, providing recreational tutoring and job-training programmes, and also developing military or community service training programmes for unemployed young people in order to develop discipline, self-esteem, skills, and civic pride. That is something that is already in New Zealand First’s policy.

One of the other prongs that I talked about was drug prevention education programmes targeting large populations, especially schools. Why schools? Schools have a large population of young people who may experiment with those kinds of things, and they need to be targeted. It is self-explanatory, really.

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: Not when I was at school.

Things have changed a little bit since we were at school. I am sure Mr Cosgrove would agree with that, as well.

We also need to encourage improved parenting skills—which is obviously a given—and selective intervention to focus on risk groups, such as truants. Truancy is one of the problems we have in this nation that seems to be spiralling out of control in so many areas. Just the other day, I was talking with people at an alternative education school, and I looked at its programme. One of the teachers said that when students are playing hooky and running around, the first thing they do is get into those types of drugs. That was a big start in their downward spiral. Thankfully, some of them have been able to come out of that situation, but some have not, and it is very sad to see the kind of effect that drugs have on our young people.

To finish, I quote the Iowa Attorney-General, Tom Miller, who said: “The number one thing we can do to fight crime is fight drugs, and the number one thing we can do to fight drugs is to do a better job with drug treatment.” That is another major issue we face as a Parliament and as a country, and we have to have law enforcement, education, and treatment all working together to fight that problem.

Taking ephedrine and pseudoephedrine off the shelves of our pharmacies is a great step in the right direction, as I said, but so much more needs to be done. I feel as if we are missing the boat in so many areas, and we are seeing a lot of people affected. This is not a drug that is confined to young people. It definitely affects young people in a big way in the clubbing scene, and so on, but it also affects many working class people of all ages—and upper class, high class, and lower class people; it affects everybody.

The Green Party is very happy to support this motion, and we congratulate the Government on picking up on two things that some months ago—last year, in fact—we strongly recommended were the way forward on P. The Green Party opposed the last proposal in this House to reclassify methamphetamine, because we did not believe that reclassification alone would achieve anything. It would simply give to the police powers they could use to hassle people without warrant, and we did not see that it would in any way bring the drug under control.

At that time we said two areas needed action. One was a focus on education, and the other was a targeting of the precursors from which P is made. We are very happy to see that there has been action on both those issues. There has been more funding for community education. We welcome that, and look forward to seeing it go from strength to strength. Now, we are targeting the precursors. All the information we can find is that the main problem is not chemist shops. Small quantities of drugs from chemist shops may be used, but the real problems are coming with the bulk import of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. Tackling that through more customs powers is exactly the right way to go.

Classifying these drugs as classes C2 and C3 gives them an appropriate degree of regulation, but there are no police powers to search on the street without warrant—which is something we have to ensure is not expanded infinitely in this country when it is unnecessary. There is not a great deal more that I want to say. We are very pleased the Government is tightening up on bulk import—in fact, preventing unauthorised bulk import—of the precursors to P.

We are pleased the education funding is out there and starting to work. This is a terrible drug, which has dreadful social consequences. We must do everything we can to get rid of it, but let us make sure that what we do is effective. I believe that what is being proposed this time will be effective, and therefore the Green Party supports it strongly.

I stand on behalf of United Future to take a brief call in support of the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of Ephedrine and Pseudoephedrine) Order 2003. While this motion has moved at some pace through the parliamentary process, and has not had the luxury of a time frame that allowed for thorough public consultation, it is heartening to see that when matters of urgent public-good arise, we provide the leadership for which we have been elected in order to avoid delays. Let us be honest: we are talking about delays that could realistically cost lives.

While classification is only one strategy for dealing with the precursor chemicals so vital for the manufacture of methamphetamines, it is the common-sense first step. Despite the fact that there have been seasons of the year when I have relied on products containing pseudoephedrine for my own health needs, I have sympathy for those calling for a total ban on products containing the precursor ingredients. The P epidemic is of such concern and is having such a devastating effect on our young people that a ban seems attractive. However, a more moderate approach is certainly worth a try, and United Future is pleased to support it. I am unsure whether the suggestion of restricting the product to the status of a prescription medicine would effect much good. It would perhaps serve only to increase the cost to genuine consumers. Perhaps our greatest hope lies in the fact that the Ministry of Health is currently evaluating new applications of pharmacy-only medicines containing phenylephrine. Those products apparently have a similar risk profile and similar effectiveness.

So the benefits of the classification order are clear. It will increase powers given to the Customs Service to curb the illegal importation and distribution of the drugs. I agree with Ms Fitzsimons that that is where the real battlefield is to be won on this matter. There will be an increase in penalties, with the hope that that will provide a genuine deterrent. It will mean that for those with genuine conditions access to the products is not hampered at this stage, and by increasing legislative controls the aim is to limit accessibility for those who wish to use these products as precursor substances.

United Future believes that this is a responsible next move in the war against P, and we will work cooperatively with any group seeking to eradicate its production and use.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the motion, which effectively allows the scheduling of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine under the Misuse of Drugs Act. It is important to think of the genesis of that. I would like to pay tribute to the Rt Hon Wyatt Creech who, back in 1999, pressed for a special rapid classification of drugs, so that it would be possible to keep up with the innovation of the criminal gangs who were, just in a very small fashion, changing the chemical formula of drugs and therefore avoiding the classification of those that were on the schedule already, and managing to avoid the law.

This time the situation is slightly different. It is not as though the formulae of the drugs have been changed, but the precursors of pure methamphetamine, pseudoephedrine and ephedrine, have become readily available not only through the chemists of New Zealand but, more important, as Jeanette Fitzsimons was saying, through illicit, illegal importation into this country in considerable numbers. I think it is very important to put in perspective how pure methamphetamine has become such an incredibly important and a worrisome drug in New Zealand in 2004. Back in 1996 a clandestine laboratory was discovered for the first time. By 1999 there were something like nine laboratories. By 2001 there were 41, and by 2002, 147. There is an estimate that there will be in the order of 300 clandestine amphetamine laboratories discovered over the 2003-04 period.

I do have some degree of criticism of the Government here, because there has been an escalation of this problem before our eyes, and there was no response by the Government until last November-December, when this process was put into place. The process itself has been gone through reasonably rapidly. In fact, in some respects it has been gone through too rapidly, or in a manner that has not allowed part of the process—that is, the calling for public submissions—to occur. That was partly because of the Christmas adjournment, but if the Government had recognised the problem earlier—and it should have been recognised, at least by 2001—then we would have had this Government motion in place at a much earlier stage to be part of the jigsaw puzzle needed in order to stop the epidemic of drug use that is upon us.

It is important to put things in perspective. New Zealand certainly has a huge drug problem. During the marijuana inquiry considerable note was taken of the Fergusson study from the South Island. It was pointed out that in the cohort of under-21-year-olds something like 10 percent of young males, and I think 8 percent of young females, were theoretically addicted to marijuana according to World Health Organization criteria. That is horrific, if we extrapolate those figures from the relatively conservative cities of Christchurch and Dunedin on to the East Coast or Northland areas. At the time there was no appreciation of the rapid increase in the usage of P. Along with that has been a rapid escalation in the use of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine. That has been noted both by the incredibly increased rate of pickup by the Customs Service and the hugely increased rate of pickup by the police.

In fact, as many speakers have pointed out, pseudoephedrine is part of the ingredients of common cough mixtures, and we certainly know that if we go to almost any chemist throughout New Zealand, that chemist will have been subjected to repeated break-ins by people trying to get medicines like Sudafed from display boxes in the shopfront. Many chemists now are just leaving empty cardboard boxes on display in the front of the store, and ensuring that the medicines are kept under lock and key at the rear. Despite that, break-ins at chemists have become a huge, continuing problem in New Zealand. Something like 30 tabs of Sudafed can produce at least 1 gram of pure methamphetamine, which can be sold on the street for $1,000 to $1,200. That is a huge amount of money. Similar amounts can, of course, be made from amphetamine.

I think it was pointed out also that the difficulty both the Customs Service and the police have is that under the previous classification of those drugs in the Medicines Act, the maximum fines certainly did not deter the criminals involved with the processing of those drugs. The maximum fine was $500, and the term of imprisonment was something like 3 months. Those penalties are certainly nowhere near to being the sorts of deterrents that are required. Under the new classification, the penalties will increase to up to 8 years’ imprisonment for importation, manufacture, or supply, to up to 7 years’ imprisonment for conspiracy to commit an offence, and to up to 3 months’ imprisonment or a $500 fine, or both, for possession. Personally, I think that that is a little too light, given the fact that pure methamphetamine is highly addictive and is associated with bizarre psychological behaviour after its use. New Zealand has witnessed that, particularly in the tragic circumstances in the Wairarapa where a young girl was strangled to death by an individual who had something like 50 convictions against him, and who, at the time, was on P. That was a tragedy.

There is absolutely no doubt that in terms of the jigsaw puzzle of getting the bits together to stop this epidemic in New Zealand, this motion is very important. But it is clearly not the whole answer. Undoubtedly, there needs to be far greater resourcing put into enforcing the law. There needs, undoubtedly, to be far more effort put by this Government into building up specific squads of specialised police officers and Customs Service agents to concentrate on the criminal activity that is occurring up and down the country. Undoubtedly, one of the worrying things is the fact that the Crown research institute, the Institute of Environmental Science and Research, does not have the ability to process all the evidence so that it can be presented in the courts. In fact, there is something like a backlog of over a year’s work. Again, there is a huge need for the Government to ensure that the Institute of Environmental Science and Research is appropriately resourced so we do not have the ridiculous situation whereby criminals are left waiting, and are finally discharged, because of a lack of evidence being available to the courts. I hold the Government responsible for that wretched situation.

It is also absolutely important to recognise that New Zealand has a huge drug problem, and that it is not only a problem of P. Most important, and first and foremost, it is a problem of alcohol, followed by nicotine, and then by marijuana. But the extraordinary rise in the use of P throughout the country is hugely worrying. I note that Sweden is a country that decriminalised marijuana in the 1960s, but re-criminalised it back in 1969. It is vital that in New Zealand we have absolutely strict rules and enforcement regarding illicit drugs such as P.

I too rise to speak in support of the Government motion in the name of my colleague the Progressive leader, Jim Anderton. This is an important motion for New Zealand’s population, and I am pleased that the Progressive-Labour Government—or the Labour-Progressive Government, whichever way one wants to look at it—is moving this motion tonight through my leader, Jim Anderton. The House is considering a proposal to classify ephedrine and pseudoephedrine as controlled substances under the Misuse of Drugs Act, a move recommended by the independent Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs late last year.

It is a shame that more members are not here to participate in, and to listen to, this debate, rather than perhaps to some of the more highlighted events we have in this Chamber, where the press gallery is present, because for parents and communities there is, on the scale of issues, no more important issue than this one. It ranks amongst the highest priorities in our community, and every member of Parliament who has children, who is associated with children, or who has had parents who have had tragedy in their lives with drugs, knows how important this issue is.

I believe we are taking this step tonight as a united Parliament. The fact that all seven parties are united behind this measure—whatever criticisms they might have about this or that anti-drug programme being followed—is a very clear signal to the public that we are taking this matter seriously, and I welcome that.

This proposal is just the latest multifaceted approach that the Labour-Progressive Government is taking to drug problems in society. Our National Drug Policy aims to strike a balanced approach to minimising drug-related harm through a mix of law enforcement aimed at reducing the supply of drugs, education aimed at reducing the demand for drugs, and the provision of Government-funded treatment services aimed at reducing the harm caused by drugs to individual families and communities.

I have taken part in debates in the community about whether cannabis should be legalised—the Progressives are opposed to the legalisation of cannabis—but the issue of P has come up time and time again, as has the concern of families about this epidemic. The Government’s response to the drug menace to society tackles it in three ways—namely, supply reduction, demand reduction, and research and treatment services for the victims of drug abuse.

In the demand-reduction field, Jim Anderton recently announced the locations of 15 community-action programmes, at the cost of $2.55 million, to establish community-run programmes aimed at fighting drugs at street level. This is an area where all members of Parliament can support the initiatives, take part in the actions, and look at the proposals that come forward from our community.

The Government is also improving our public health and education drug resources. The police are developing a programme for use with schools, parents, and students to improve youth resilience to risky behaviours, particularly focusing on methamphetamine. Clearly, this motion fits in with the supply-reduction category of our multifaceted, anti-drug programme. Tonight’s proposal to classify pseudoephedrine and ephedrine precursors will give the Customs Service the ability to penalise those importing these drugs without a licence much more severely. The classification is aimed at deterring unlicensed importers of this product.

One of the first things that the Progressive leader did after becoming chairperson of the ministerial committee overseeing the National Drug Policy in late 2002 was to progress the reclassification of methamphetamine to a class A hard drug, with a penalty of up to life imprisonment for suppliers and manufacturers. I was disappointed that that proposal did not get the unanimity of the seven parties in the House, so the fact that we have unanimity now on this measure is a step forward. I urge all parties tonight to show unity and purpose as we confront the complex threat posed by very dangerous drugs to our communities, and especially to our young people,.

ACT will support this motion, but has some very serious difficulties with the process—or lack of process—that occurred when this Order in Council was at the select committee stage. ACT supports the classification, because what was previously in place regarding, in particular, the power of the Customs Service to act on the importation of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine preparations, was certainly inadequate. A fine of $500, and/or up to 3 months’ imprisonment was no deterrent at all to the importation of the quantities that the Customs Service was increasingly seeing.

Classifying pseudoephedrine and ephedrine will increase the penalties, and that is much more appropriate. As a member previously stated, there will be up to 8 years’ imprisonment for importation, manufacture, or supply, and up to 7 years’ imprisonment for conspiracy to commit an offence. The effect of the classification will be to give the Customs Service wider powers to investigate importation syndicates, and allow for penalties that will be a genuine deterrent to importation.

I want to turn to the lack of process during the select committee stage. We know that this motion was discussed widely in October 2003, yet it was not until 2 weeks before Parliament was due to rise for the Christmas break last year that this Order in Council was brought to the select committee. The select committee members went back to their caucuses, and a week later—in the last week of Parliament—were told that there were three submissions before them. Each of the three submitters held grave concerns about the effect the classification would have on people being able to buy their ephedrine and pseudoephedrine cough and cold remedies across the counter in chemist shops.

This highlights the lack of public consultation on the classification proposal. It was very remiss, and ACT would like to voice strongly its objection to the way this happened. We were told that as a result of the Order in Council, the three submitters were very worried that some medications that can currently be bought across the counter would become dispensary only—anything that contained more than 60 milligrams per tablet of pseudoephedrine or ephedrine—so that people could not buy them unless they spoke to a pharmacist. It was also thought that night-and-day preparations would become prescription only, so that people would then have to go to their doctor, at a cost of about $40 to $50—unless they happened to live in a Māori-loaded area, in which case they could get very cheap consultations through the Government’s new primary health organisations, and pay $10. Still, a visit to the doctor would be necessary, as well as the additional cost of the preparation on top of that. This is clearly a very unsatisfactory course of events.

We are assured by the Associate Minister of Health, the Hon Jim Anderton, that this will not be the case, but the lack of public consultation on this classification proposal highlights the confusion that can exist when the process is not gone through in the proper way, or the proper channels not followed. Punishing 99 percent of the population because 1 percent of the population is not able to function in a law-abiding way is no way at all to work on such problems. ACT is supporting the proposal because it fully supports the additional powers that the Customs Service will be given as a result of this Order in Council being passed.

The speaker before me, Matt Robson from the Progressive party, said he was disappointed that this matter did not have full support and unity in the select committee. It did not because of the bulldozer approach of the Associate Minister of Health, and the attempt to get it through in a sneaky way that is indicative of some of Labour’s other legislation that has been passed recently.

We should also not forget that this is not the only measure for dealing with the P epidemic we see in the country at the moment. The Government announced last year that extra money in the Budget would go towards extra resourcing for police, yet, despite the escalating P problem and the proliferation of methamphetamine laboratories nationwide, that money was deferred to 1 January 2004. It clearly shows that the Government was not giving priority to this problem, yet it is prepared to bulldoze through classifications such as the one we are seeing now.

In summary, we support this Order in Council, but we would like to voice very strongly our disapproval of the manner in which it has been pushed through the select committee and come before the House. It is inappropriate, and we certainly will not support things like this happening again. In this case, it is a very serious matter—[Interruption] Perhaps the newly appointed junior whip would like to take a call?

💬 Darren Hughes: No, I was talking to Mr Jones.

Mr Hughes was interrupting the flow of the discussion.

As I was saying, ACT is supporting this measure, but the process has been followed in a very unconventional and inappropriate way.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 9.49 p.m.