Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3)

I move, That the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a first time. The purpose of this bill is to ensure that the misuse of drugs legislation is better able to meet its objective, which is, of course, to prevent the misuse of drugs. The Misuse of Drugs Act has two key parts. The first is the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, or the principal Act, which comes under my responsibility as the Associate Minister of Health. The second part, the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 1978, comes under the responsibility of my colleague the Hon Phil Goff, the Minister of Justice. The bill will make several key changes to the principal Act, to make it more responsive to changes in illicit drug trends in New Zealand. Those changes are, in summary: moving presumption of supply matters from the provisions of the principal Act to its schedules so that they can be altered more quickly and flexibly by Order in Council, setting the presumption of supply amount for methamphetamine at 5 grams rather than the current default amount of 56 grams, and expanding the membership of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs to include a Ministry of Justice official.

The principal Act currently provides for a rebuttal presumption that when a person is found with a certain amount of a controlled drug, he or she possesses that drug for the purpose of dealing or supplying it to others. The onus is on the person found with the drug to prove that he or she was not supplying the drug, and that the drug was intended for personal use. That presumption is referred to as the presumption of supply. Section 6(6) of the principal Act currently provides a presumption of supply that is set at the amount of 56 grams for all controlled drugs, except for those that have a specific presumption of supply listed separately in that section. That situation gives rise to difficulties, as the principal Act must be amended every time there is the decision, on advice from the expert advisory committee, to set or alter a specific presumption of supply for a particular controlled drug. That process can result in unnecessarily long delays. The principal Act will be amended to move presumption of supply matters to its schedules, so that they can be set or altered through Orders in Council. The amendment will allow for a more efficient process than the passing of a new Act of Parliament each time, but it will still allow for scrutiny by the Health Committee and the House as a whole, as well as provide for public consultation.

The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs recently recommended that the presumption of supply amount for methamphetamine should be set at 5 grams, and thus reduced from the present 56 grams. Accordingly, the new presumption of supply schedule will be set for that amount of methamphetamine. In addition, the expert advisory committee is to be expanded to include the expertise of a Ministry of Justice official.

Changes are also proposed to respond to concerns that the enforcement provisions dealing with precursor substances are inadequate. Concern has centred on ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, which are key precursor substances used in the illicit manufacture of methamphetamine. Currently, there is no offence relating to the import or export of precursors for the manufacture of illicit drugs. In a border situation, only charges for the offence of possessing a precursor can be laid. However, possession is impossible to prove in cargo and mail interceptions, as no person has physical possession or control of the substance. The Labour-Progressive Government has therefore created two new offences. The first will enable customs officers to seize and detain precursor substances that are imported into or exported from New Zealand in the knowledge that they will be used to commit an offence by producing or manufacturing any controlled drug, with a maximum penalty of 7 years’ imprisonment. The second offence will enable customs officers to seize and detain precursor substances imported into or exported from New Zealand without reasonable excuse, with a maximum penalty of 1 year’s imprisonment.

At present the power to detain, search, and seize without warrant is restricted to class A, B1, and C1 controlled drugs. The Government has also agreed that the principal Act should be amended to create a new Part 3 of schedule 4, to extend the powers in section 18(2) and (3) of that Act to enter, detain, search, and seize without warrant the precursor substances listed in the new Part 3 of schedule 4, and to list ephedrine and pseudoephedrine in the new Part 3 of schedule 4. Therefore, this bill will extend the powers of search and seizure without warrant to ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, thereby allowing the police to respond quickly when investigating large purchases of pharmacy-only pseudoephedrine medication to be passed on to illicit manufacturers of methamphetamine.

The last set of changes to the principal Act relates to the offence of possessing needles and syringes. Under the Health (Needles and Syringes) Regulations of 1998, there is a legal defence to the charge of possession of a needle or syringe if the injecting drug user can show the needle or syringe was obtained legitimately through the needle and syringe exchange programme. At present, the onus of proof in the defence lies with the defendant, and that has caused a number of problems, mainly in the health area, of intravenous drug users using used needles. The bill will amend the principal Act by moving the defence to the offence of possessing a needle or syringe from the regulations—where it is now—into the principal Act, and by reversing the onus of proof from the defendant to the prosecution, which will have to prove that the needle or syringe was not obtained through the exchange programme. Fundamentally, that is to encourage the use of clean needles, rather than to have the enormous costs that go with the health problems of hepatitis C, HIV/AIDS, and so on.

The second part of the Misuse of Drugs Act is the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 1978. The changes to the amendment Act are intended to provide New Zealand’s law enforcement agencies, namely, the Customs Service and the police, with powers that will enable them to more effectively detect the presence of controlled drugs and take appropriate action. The main changes will be that the provisions in the second part of the Act relating to controlled deliveries will be extended to include precursor substances like ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. Customs officers and members of the police will be able to conduct personal searches without a warrant during a controlled delivery. The law enforcement agencies in New Zealand will be able to facilitate international controlled deliveries without the prospect of the liability of the importer and exporter of the illegal substances being affected by the law enforcement agency’s involvement, and customs officers and members of the police will be provided with the power to personally search persons held under the internal concealment provisions of the second part of the Act.

There is one further issue relating to this bill to which I wish to draw members’ attention. In March 2004 the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs recommended the creation of a new schedule of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The purpose of the new schedule is to enable some regulation of legal substances that are subject to abuse but that do not warrant, on available evidence, regulation under the current risk classes—the A, B, or C drug classifications. An example of such a substance is the legal high benzylpiperazine. The regulation proposed will allow restrictions to be placed on matters such as the legal age of purchase, and on retailing, supplying, marketing, and labelling in relation to the substances in the new schedule. Such a schedule would not be confined to substances like benzylpiperazine, but would also provide another strategy in the spectrum of measures to reduce the harm associated with volatile substance abuse, which includes solvent abuse. All members will know of the tragic cases of solvent abuse recently before the coroners’ courts. This bill provides an opportunity to put that new schedule in place now. It is the Labour-Progressive Government’s intention to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper providing for such a new schedule in time for it to be considered by the select committee together with this bill. We are taking the opportunity to do that now, because if we do not provide for that in this bill it may be 1 or 2 more years before there is another opportunity.

It is proposed to refer this bill to the Health Committee for consideration. The Labour-Progressive Government is anxious that this important bill be passed this year, if that is possible. Therefore, I propose that the Health Committee endeavour to make its final report to the House on the bill by the end of November 2004, so as to enable that to happen.

The National Party will support this bill. We are certainly very pleased to see that some action is being taken to try to deal with the problem of methamphetamines, which is certainly a growing problem. I think the fact that we hear that the police are dealing with more and more clandestine laboratories for the manufacture of methamphetamines indicates that that is simply the tip of the iceberg. Although a number of laboratories are found and dismantled and a number of prosecutions come from that, there is likely to be a significant number that are not found or dealt with, but continue to thrive, no matter how many times people are told about and see the results of the use of methamphetamines. In an ideal world and an ideal country, we would be able to say to people—intelligent, adult people; New Zealanders—that they can just decide on the things that they want to take, because we know they will make the right choices. But unfortunately, when it comes to drugs like methamphetamines, there is no safe dosage. Although the police tell me—as they do—that alcohol is the No. 1 drug that they have the most difficulty with, they do understand, and we understand, that alcohol, for instance, is a drug that does have safe tolerance levels. Methamphetamines, unfortunately, do not.

At this moment I would like to give a bit of praise to the pharmaceutical people, and to the pharmacies themselves. In many ways—certainly in my electorate of Clevedon, and particularly in Papakura—they have gone out of their way to try to stop pseudoephedrine and other drugs like it that are used in the manufacture of methamphetamines from being bought and used for the manufacture of that particular drug. I think that is a very, very good instance of the pharmacy people getting together and deciding that is the right thing for them to do. They are not required by law to do it, and in some parts of the country they do not do it at all. But in places like Rotorua, Papakura, and Manukau City, there is a widespread belief by the pharmacies and pharmacists that they should help to deal with that particular issue. I congratulate them on that, and I think that members of the House would share the view that that is a very, very sensible move. The problem for those of us who do not manufacture methamphetamines, but who may wish to have a cold medicine, is that it does make it more difficult for the legitimate purchaser to obtain those medicines. But those things can be dealt with, and I think that we do owe the pharmacists a vote of thanks.

In terms of methamphetamines, as the Minister has rightly said, there has been a big increase. In New Zealand we are dealing with a rise in not only the amount of methamphetamines manufactured here but also in those being brought into the country by way of illegal importation. One of the issues that is very, very relevant is the resourcing and outputs of people in the New Zealand Customs Service and the New Zealand Immigration Service, to make sure that they are given the resources to be able to deal with the situation. We need to have intelligence-gathering in other countries, and we need very much to have an attitude that we will not accept this country being awash with methamphetamines. I am very pleased to hear the Minister speak in those terms. In this particular area, however, we do need to be vigilant. One of the problems with any sort of legislation is that it is always somewhat retrospective, so we are acting after the event. Unfortunately, methamphetamines have grown in terms of their use, their availability, and the addictions that have come from them in the last 5 years. Too little has been done for too long. I am glad that we are now to take the issue seriously.

I am concerned that some children are being brought up in homes where methamphetamine use is a way of life. Prostitution is being indulged in on the basis that it pays for methamphetamine habits. There is no safe level of methamphetamine use. The brain damage that can ensue from that particular activity is now well documented, and people in this country should know that. Yet we see no public health advertisements or campaigns in relation to methamphetamines. We certainly saw a tremendous number of public health campaigns in relation to passive smoking. Huge amounts of taxpayer dollars were spent to tell people, by way of television—that being considered the most effective way to get the message through—about the possible results of passive smoking. Nowhere do we see anything on our television screens about the effects of methamphetamines or other illegal drugs, such as marijuana—the effects on foetuses, and the long-term effects on users. If we are ever to take illegal drug use seriously in this country, we need to start to get the message out there. We need to stop pussyfooting around and fearing that we may offend someone if we tell the truth.

It is about time that we in this House faced up to the fact that there is a tremendous amount of illegal and illicit drug use in this country. Drugs are illegal and illicit for very good reason: they do incredible harm, and do no good. We need to accept that. I am pleased the Minister takes this issue seriously, and I am very pleased that in Parliament we will be able to get—I expect—almost unanimous support on this issue. I say “almost”, because not everyone will agree that illicit and illegal drugs have no benefits for, and are simply an ill on, the people who use them.

In this country there are people who have difficulty in getting together enough money to pay their rent and to pay for their weekly food. Yet we, as members of Parliament, all know of instances where people would rather spend their money on drugs than on rent and food. In this country there is an attitude that nobody particularly cares whether people spend that money on drugs, because it is their money. Well, I say that when people are taking the food out of the mouths of their babies in order to feed their drug habits, it is about time that we took drugs seriously. I do not subscribe to the 1970s view that drugs are all pretty good and are fine for us. I did not do so in the 1970s, and I certainly will not now in the 2000s.

💬 Simon Power: How old was the member in the 1970s?

I tell the member that in the 1970s I was a teenager, which just goes to show that non - drug use does help to keep one young.

I have mentioned earlier the abuse of alcohol in this country. I take that issue very seriously. I take it seriously in terms of children, of the health effects it has on this country, and also of the police resources that are used so much to deal with it. Two bad drugs do not make one good drug; I think we need to make that very plain. We know we could never outlaw alcohol in this country. It is utterly a part of our culture, and has been for thousands of years. We know what happened in this country when alcohol was outlawed: that led to gangs. In this country there is no need for us ever to go down the track of bringing in more drugs that we will have more trouble in trying to control.

I will just briefly comment. It is a pleasure to follow on from that member’s contribution. I agree with her. I think this is an area in which this House may well almost unanimously—if not unanimously—agree. We certainly should find agreement in supporting what is good legislation.

This bill seeks to address a blight on our society. Anything that we in this House can do to fight that evil should be done. I commend members for the work they have done to progress the legislation, and urge the House to support its rapid progress.

In speaking to the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3), I want briefly to read an excerpt from the explanatory note, to elaborate on that, and then to elaborate on a few other provisions in the bill.

Before I go on to that, I want to say that New Zealand First, like the National Party, will support this bill going to the select committee. I look forward to hearing evidence and submissions to see whether there is any way we can make the bill even better.

I will elaborate firstly on a section of the explanatory note. It states: “Police are attempting to address the increasing illicit trade in methamphetamine through targeting the precursor substances and chemical reagents used to manufacture the drug, principally, ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. The power to detain, search and seize … is restricted to Classes A, B1 and C1 controlled drugs. In particular, the police are concerned that they are unable to respond quickly (ie, without a warrant) when they are investigating shoppers who purchase large amounts of pharmacy-only pseudoephedrine medication to pass on to illicit manufacturers (pill shoppers).” The enhancement of police powers to search and seize is an action that New Zealand First and I believe is a positive move.

I want to make one point as far as that issue is concerned. I remember that a while back now—probably 3, 4, or 5 months ago—the former spokesperson on health for the National Party, Dr Lynda Scott, made an interesting point about pseudoephedrine being a product contained in a lot of cold and flu medications in pharmacies. I remember very clearly her saying that when she was studying medicine that ingredient was not considered very necessary in medications, in respect of its not being the miracle ingredient. There were other ingredients that could be used to make cold and flu drugs, etc.

I remember falling sick a little while ago. I normally use a cold and flu medicine that does not contain pseudoephedrine, but one of the pharmacy assistants recommended I use Codral—

💬 Darren Hughes: Day and Night!

Day and Night. I was told it was great stuff. I tried it, and the pharmacy obviously had to take my driver’s licence number, and so on. That is the common practice, which is a good thing considering the fact that we have so many problems with pharmacies being broken into, and with the problems that come along with that. Anyway, I took it, and it did not help me at all compared with the help I had when I went back to the old remedies. They were just as good, if not better.

The point I am trying to make is to ask whether there is still a necessity to stock those drugs within our pharmacies. The previous speaker said that a lot of pharmacies in Rotorua and other places do not even stock those kinds of drugs, so I think that that is something we should look at in the select committee.

As I said, New Zealand First will vote for this bill because it is a step in the right direction. We have to take incredibly positive action in this area straight away, because drugs are ruining young people, families, and children in our nation of New Zealand.

I want to address one other thing—the Minister touched on it in his opening speech—with regard to the offence relating to the possession of needles or syringes. I am concerned about that issue, and it is one thing that I—or if I am not on the select committee, one of my other colleagues—will look forward to getting stuck into. The explanatory note again states: “The aim of the Ministry of Health funded Needle and Syringe Exchange Programme (NSEP) is to reduce the spread of HIV, Hepatitis C, and other blood-borne viruses among injecting drug users (IDUs). The aim is achieved through the distribution of sterile injecting equipment. The NSEP also encourages safe disposal of used needles and syringes and provides information about safer drug use techniques. It is operated through pharmacies and dedicated needle exchanges throughout New Zealand (NSEP outlets).”

Further on, the explanatory note continues: “The 1987 regulations also created a legal defence to the charge of possession of a needle or syringe (which is currently an offence under section 13(1)(aa) of the principal Act).”, as the Minister said. “The defence provided that a person did not commit an offence under section 13(1)(aa) of the principal Act if he or she could show that the needle or syringe was purchased through the NSEP.” Again, as the Minister said, currently: “The onus of proof in the defence lies with the defendant. The current regulations, the Health (Needles and Syringes) Regulations 1998 retain the defence created in the 1987 regulations.” As the Minister has just talked about, the explanatory note goes on to state: “The Government has agreed to amend the principal Act to move the defence to the offence of possession of a needle or syringe from the Health (Needles and Syringes) Regulations 1998 into the principal Act, and to reverse the onus of proof.”

I am looking forward to the referral of the bill to the select committee so that we can talk about that issue. But on the face of it I would prefer that a user has to prove to a court that he or she obtained the needle or syringe from the approved source.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: Absolutely. This provision is political correctness by a liberal Government.

I have agreement from another member of the House. He knows exactly where I am coming from. Hopefully the Police Association will make a submission, and I will be very interested to see what it thinks.

I personally think that the whole Needle and Syringe Exchange Programme is controversial in itself, and it creates a lot of loopholes and problems in some areas. People might argue that it fixes problems in other areas. But that issue aside, I still think the bill is soft on crime in that respect. It is a major concern of mine, and in the select committee we must try to address the issue of offences relating to the possession of needles or syringes.

There are a lot of positive aspects of the bill, and I want to touch on them. The first relates to the controlled delivery provisions in the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act. The bill extends those provisions to include precursor substances, and gives the power to customs officers and the police to be able to conduct personal searches without a warrant during any controlled delivery.

In another positive move, I believe, they will have the power to personally search persons held under the internal concealment provisions of that Act. One of the major problems that we as politicians read about in newspapers, and read in letters from many organisations written to us as members of Parliament, is that the police do not have adequate powers and resources to do the job. We have a competent police force, but we need to be fair, and to give them the powers and resources to fight this crime.

The Greens will be supporting this bill to the select committee. We think it will be an interesting examination, and we look forward to the evidence on the pros and cons of the various aspects of the bill, because it does contain a number of very different provisions. Some we support very strongly, others we oppose, and still others we feel neutral about.

I shall indicate why we support the bill and why we thank Mr Anderton for introducing it. Firstly, there is a provision to add a Ministry of Justice representative to the membership of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs. Some members may think that is insignificant, but we think it is very important. It is well needed. If we think back to the scheduling of Fantasy, it demonstrated clearly that there has been a glaring gap in the expertise available to the advisory committee, in looking at these things.

Let us be clear: at that time the Greens supported the scheduling of Fantasy. It was becoming increasingly obvious that there were very real dangers associated with its use. But we did have real concerns about making Fantasy a class B1 drug, rather than a class B2, or some other, because it included search without warrant provisions. The Greens have a very real concern about the extension of search without warrant provisions to the police. We think it is a very dangerous power and should be used very, very carefully. There are a number of examples of case law where judges are criticising the way that police use powers of search without warrant—in fact, they have acquitted people because of the way those powers have been used and abused in ways that breach people’s rights, as guaranteed under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Of course, that does not mean all police officers, but some front-line officers have used those powers in ways that the law did not intend.

I think it is questionable whether the Misuse of Drugs Act would have contained search without warrant provisions at all, if that 1975 legislation had been subject to the vetting of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in the way that legislation is today.

We questioned the inclusion of those powers, at the time. The answers we were given by the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs were unsatisfactory. We asked why those search without warrant powers should be applied to Fantasy. We got no real justification at all. There was no evidential basis for that decision. We think that including a Ministry of Justice official as a member of the advisory committee will help to make sure that those considerations are discussed by the committee. If there are substances that will attract search without warrant powers, then there will have to be an evidential reason why such draconian powers should attach to that substance.

We strongly support the changes relating to the possession of needles. The Needle and Syringe Exchange Programme is an extremely important regime for reducing the incidence of HIV and hepatitis C among intravenous drug users. The places where the needles are available are also very important for providing information to those communities, and getting information. Those are among the few areas where the intravenous drug-using community interacts with the State. It is important that we protect the integrity of that, in order that we can understand what is happening within that community, and the community can get better access to health information and harm reduction information. It is extremely important, and we support the changes in the application of the defence provisions to expand the provision of those needle exchange services.

However, there are things that we oppose—in particular, as I have foreshadowed, the extension of search without warrant powers to precursors by amending schedule 4. Let us be clear: the Greens supported increased restrictions around precursors, which have already been passed by the House. We supported those provisions, because we recognise that P is an extremely dangerous drug. It has very, very real risks. But we do not believe the search without warrant provisions attaching to those precursors are necessary or warranted. I have already spoken about the significant implications of search without warrant powers, generally. There is no real constraint over how the police use those powers.

I will be very interested to have a look at the advice of the Attorney-General on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act implications of the extension of this to precursor drugs. It seems a totally unnecessary expansion of the arbitrary power of the police to search and seize. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure is one of the basic guarantees in human rights conventions and bill of rights legislation.

We have to remember that precursors are, by definition, drugs about to be used in the manufacture of methamphetamine or other serious drugs. So, if these precursors are being used in the manufacture of those drugs, one does not need a search without warrant provision. There is ample time for the police to go to a JP, or a judge, and to get themselves a search warrant. We are talking about precursors that are involved in a lengthy manufacturing process; we are not talking about people on the street with a small amount of something. So it is just not necessary to have those search without warrant powers, with the dangers that go along with increasing its use.

The Green Party also has concerns about some of the provisions in relation to customs officers. The explanatory note talks about two new offences. The first one enables customs officers “to seize and detain precursor substances imported into New Zealand or exported from New Zealand with the knowledge that they would be used to commit an offence”. That is quite sensible, and I can totally understand that. There is concern about the other offence, which enables customs officers “to seize and detain precursor substances imported into New Zealand or exported from New Zealand without reasonable excuse, with a maximum penalty of 1 year’s imprisonment.” We have a bit of a concern around that because what it once again seems to be doing, as with other drug legislation, is reversing the onus of proof and saying that one has to prove one’s intention, rather than the prosecution proving it. We think that that is something this House should be very careful about doing.

The other thing is this email that has just come around with a background explanation from the Government about the bill. One of the things I wanted to draw the attention of the House to is controlled deliveries in relation to search without warrant powers. We can see the point of allowing a controlled delivery to take place; it makes sense as that is a basic police sting operation. But the justification for adding search without warrant powers in this regard is, it says, that the police rely on section 18(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act to detain and search without a warrant; however, it is confined only to class A, B1, and C1 controlled drugs. This precludes some current drugs of abuse that are being imported, and the bill talks about precursors.

Of course the thing is that if the bill is going to make precursors subject to search without warrant provisions, then that no longer applies. So the very reasoning in the Government’s explanation actually no longer applies when the legislation comes into force. The second one it mentions is that the police powers under section 18(3) cannot be used in situations where the drugs have been substituted with placebos, because there are no controlled drugs in the packet. But once again, let us be clear that a search without warrant power is not needed. If the Customs Service knows there is a delivery, if it is tracking it, and if it is going to bust that house, there is plenty of time for the police to go to a JP and get themselves a warrant. Look, if they are tracking the package, then they know where it is and they know where it is going. It takes just half an hour to go down to a JP and get a search warrant. I have seen them do it, and that is how it works. The other point I am going to make—

💬 Craig McNair: It’s not quite as simple as that.

It actually is as simple as that—I have seen them do it. The other point I would like to make is that the Supplementary Order Paper that the Government has said it will introduce to bring in a new schedule to allow R18 restrictions is something that we support. This is something that we recommended when the expert advisory committee was looking at benzylpiperazine, and we think it is a very sensible thing. I would like to be assured that that will be introduced in a way that means the select committee will be able to call for submissions and examine them; that it will be introduced early enough so that it goes to select committee and the public gets to have a say.

Our concern is also that it does not go far enough. The Misuse of Drugs Act is very complex, confusing legislation and this is adding piecemeal new bits and pieces, which makes it even more complex. We in the Green Party think we have an opportunity here to simplify and expand the Misuse of Drugs Act, to tidy it up so that it is straightforward, streamlined legislation, and to expand it so it can deal with a wide range of recreational drugs. We support R18 provisions. Let us put tobacco and alcohol into the Misuse of Drugs Act, as well. Let us put in the legal highs as well as those that are R18 restricted. We could put in a class that has no age-limit but includes things like warnings on vessels, and advertising restrictions. We could put caffeinated drinks, like V and Red Bull, in there as well. We could have a single piece of legislation that deals in a consistent, integrated, and sensible way with a full range of recreational drugs. That would be a much more sensible way than the hodgepodge legislation we have now.

I rise on behalf of the ACT party to say that our party intends to support this legislation to a select committee, but like other parties we do have reservations and I would like to use this opportunity to put some of those concerns on the record. The Labour Party measure in front of us right now does sound like it is getting tough on drugs, crime, and so on, but the reality is that the Government’s progress in this area has essentially been pretty much a disaster. Too little, too late, is probably the best way to describe it.

I would like to start by outlining some information I received under the Official Information Act in May of 2003. It stated that that was the sixth briefing paper that had been given to Ministers of this Government since 2001, all warning about the problems the country faced with the methamphetamine crisis that was developing. The Official Information Act papers were using as primary indicators the national drug use survey and customs and drugs seizure data. That is what the information was based on, and the papers essentially stated that the Government was facing a huge problem. By 2001 the rate of amphetamine and methamphetamine use in New Zealand, at 5 percent, was higher than in almost every other country except Thailand, where the figure was 5.9 percent. The authorities in Thailand had already said that they had an epidemic that was affecting all levels of society. New Zealand was almost at that level.

The official information briefing paper warned the Government that New Zealand was facing a major problem across the board, relating to the criminal area, the social area, law enforcement, and the environmental area, unless the Government got on top of the problem. Did the Government get on top of this problem? The answer is no. What we are seeing now is something that should have been happening years ago. This is simply a small, hotchpotch measure that makes this Government think that it looks tough, but essentially it is not enough to deal with this problem.

The National Drug Intelligence Bureau, back in 2003, said that it did not know of any other Western country experiencing the same explosion in the manufacturing of methamphetamine. Just to put it on record, in 1997 the police discovered one clandestine laboratory; in 1998 the figure was two; in 1999 it was five; in 2000 it was nine; in 2001 it was 41; in 2002 it was 147; and in 2003 it was 164. This year the figure is expected to be more than 300, and the police are not getting to many. They know that the number of laboratories out there is growing like Topsy. The amount of P available in this society is such that it is everywhere. We even have corner dairies now selling the pipes that allow people to smoke P.

What is this Government doing? It is taking police off the beat to guard prisoners and to go out and collect traffic tickets so that it can boost its revenue. It is taking detectives away from the job of fighting the drug barons and it is putting them on traffic duty. It has the drug team enforcing the seizure of drugs as they come in at airports, instead of trying to track down the people who are at the heart of this problem of manufacturing and distribution in New Zealand. We have a police force that cannot even do its job because this Government is soft on crime. The official information report that I received in 2003 stated: “The current methamphetamine situation in this country is critical. The escalation of international and domestic organised crime involvement in the importation, manufacture, and distribution of amphetamine-type substances poses a serious threat to this country. The situation is far more significant and far-reaching than the impact on New Zealand of the Mr Asia syndicate in the late 1970s and early 1980s.”

That was in 2003. Now the problem is far worse. This Government is trying to pass a half-baked bill that will go nowhere near the steps that are needed to get on top of the problem. I think it is an absolute disgrace. It is an indication that this Government does not care about crime in New Zealand.

The Official Information Act goes on to warn of something else. It states that it is only a matter of time before those laboratories that manufacture methamphetamines turn to manufacturing ice—crystal methamphetamine. It talks about its powerful form, and the effect it will have. It states that the effects of ice are very similar to crack cocaine, with one significant exception: the effect of crack cocaine lasts for 10 to 20 minutes; the effect of ice is more prolonged, at between 8 and16 hours. We already know the effect of P on citizens and how much more violence there is against the police. The police, by the way, are not even allowed to get the protective vests that would make them safe from the knife assaults that they face every day out there because of P-crazed offenders.

We also have violence in hospitals. We have people at risk at all levels of society—even those who deal with children these days who are high on P. Yet this Government is not doing enough to get on top of the methamphetamine problem, let alone to get on top of the ice problem, which the officials warned over 18 months ago was going to be a real epidemic in New Zealand.

We then look at the poor old Institute of Environmental Science and Research—the agency that goes out and tests these drugs in the methamphetamine laboratories. We ask ourselves: “Are they on top of their job?”. The answer is no, because they are not given the funding or the resources to be able to do the job properly. I say that if this Government is not prepared to allow them to do the job properly, then it should be contracted out to the private sector. That is what they did in Britain, and that is how they brought down 2-year waits for samples that the police had collected to be analysed, so they can put those criminals behind bars instead of having them on the streets. We cannot put someone on remand for 2 years, which is how long it is taking to get these samples analysed.

When the British Home Office contracted it out, the time taken reduced from 2 years down to 1 month. That is what we should have in New Zealand, so that when the police go out and bust a lab, then 1 month later they have their samples analysed and they can bring the case to court. We then need to have some tough sentences. It is absolutely no good that somebody gets busted for methamphetamines, gets put behind bars, and serves only one-third of the sentence. He or she is then back out on the streets, manufacturing again. It is a revolving door situation that this Government is not getting on top of at all.

💬 Ron Mark: What about the people who go on home detention?

My colleague makes a good point. They probably have methamphetamine laboratories in their homes, and we are paying for them to stay at home and manufacture. It is just appalling. I know that the Government says that it is a matter of resources, and we do not have the money to crack down on methamphetamines. That is rubbish.

💬 Ron Mark: A record surplus.

There is a record surplus, but worse than that, the Government is going to spend $21 million in election year, selling its Budget. There is a big election campaign fund. Why does the Government not put some of that money into getting on top of this problem?

Everybody, at every level of society, is concerned about this issue. The police will tell us that the place is awash with it. This Government has sat on its hands and seen a crisis develop in New Zealand. Unfortunately I do not think the public understands quite how bad it is. We know in this House that it is time the Government got on top of it.

I rise on behalf of United Future in support of the first reading of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3). The Hon Rick Barker acknowledged in August this year that “methamphetamine abuse is the single biggest illicit drug problem facing New Zealand.” We acknowledge that the impact of drugs is absolutely enormous. The police crime statistics released recently pointed to a 30 percent increase in non-cannabis offences, which the police have explained is driven by an increase in the manufacture of illicit drugs, and of course the policing initiatives that they have been running. I also want to endorse the comments of the previous speaker, who talked about the burgeoning number of clandestine laboratories. My understanding is that to date in this financial year, 190 laboratories have been closed down. That is really the tip of the iceberg. I think most of us have heard anecdotally that, because of the under-resourcing of the police, the local police in many areas know where laboratories are, but because they are not permitted to go in on their own initiative and search the premises in view of the danger factors, they have to wait until the special police unit mandated to do that work is able to come into their area and investigate the situation. Because of that resourcing issue, we have an absolutely rampant and out-of-control methamphetamine problem.

We support the two main directions of this bill: firstly, the amending of the presumption of supply provisions, so we can crack down on the dealers, and secondly, the preventing of the importing and exporting of precursor substances. At present section 6(6) of the principal Act creates a presumption whereby a person who is found in possession of 56 grams of a controlled drug is deemed to have it for the purposes of supply. If the police can prove the person had the drug, then the onus is on the defendant to prove that he or she had it for another reason. The problem that has been created is that if the measurement is set at the wrong level, the legislation has to be changed. If we are to address with appropriate speed the rather outrageous measurement of 56 grams, we need to have the ability to do that through an Order in Council. I want to pick up on that figure, because at the select committee United Future will be very interested to hear some scientific evidence about the limit for personal use. We suspect that this proposal does not go far enough. Let me give this fact, which shows how ridiculous it is that at present someone is allowed to be in possession of 56 grams of methamphetamine before he or she is deemed to be supplying it. Apparently P is bought in what is generally called points. A point is 0.1 of a gram. If someone purchases 1 gram of P, for approximately $1,000, it then has to be broken down into points in order to use it. This change recommends that someone would be allowed 5 grams before it would be considered not to be for personal use but for supply. I think that does raise some very interesting questions as to whether even a figure of 5 grams is too high. We will be watching that issue very closely and asking some very serious questions at the select committee, to determine how we arrived at 5 grams as being an acceptable level. It is, of course, certainly a big improvement on 56 grams.

We understand the importance of being able to move quickly to adjust the amounts by Order in Council, and we are supportive of that. However, we do have some questions about how that will be managed, with regard to what would happen if a proposal came forward on a given substance to relax through Order in Council the amount that would be considered acceptable before one was considered to be in possession for supply. We have all assumed that this legislation is about the opportunity to tighten down on the amounts that people are allowed to have in their possession before they can be charged with supplying. I guess we need to be careful that we do not set in place a very quick and fast-track method that does not require revisiting an issue back in Parliament if the intention is to relax that provision. We believe it is important and essential to crack down on drugs quickly. The process should not be drawn out, and the amending of legislation should be able to be done in a speedy manner.

Many of the dealers who are pushing drugs on our teenagers, for instance, are enticing them with the opportunity to go shopping for the tablets needed in the manufacture of P, and they are being supplied with some of their own needs in terms of their addictions. The other supply is from “tinny houses”, where young people buying cannabis are introduced to even more dangerous substances.

We support the second main provision of the bill, which is to prevent the importing and exporting of precursor substances. It is extremely well known that overseas drug syndicates are targeting New Zealand, both with methamphetamines and the precursor substances, and that it is a growing problem. In 2004, for instance, 12,685 grams of methamphetamine was seized by the Customs Service at the border, which was 10 times more than in the year before. In 2004 over a million tablets of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine were seized by Customs—a sizable increase from the amount that had been seized the year before. Those dealers are coming into our country with the full intention of supplying P laboratories up and down this country.

The other controversial provision that other members have referred to is the amending of the provisions for the needle and syringe exchange programme. That is another area where we will be very interested to see what comes up at the select committee. Our understanding is that what motivated the inclusion of the provision is that many of the staff working on the needle and syringe exchange programme have had huge amounts of their time tied up in appearing in court to defend people who are on charges of having needles, where the onus of proof is upon them to say where they acquired those needles. It has become a bit of an administrative nightmare, and the staff feel they could be using their time a lot better. However, we have some concerns about what this bill proposes, and we will be very interested to see whether there are any other suggestions out there. One of my colleagues said that maybe a certifying certificate of some kind could be given at the needle and syringe exchange. That is used in other jurisdictions, and it may have an application here—that is, some sort of certificate of proof that could be given to users of the programme.

We would also like a little more information on the Supplementary Order Paper that the Hon Jim Anderton indicated today would be introduced as part of this legislation. We have not had a chance to see any of those provisions, and we would like to see some of the detail of them and get our heads around it, in order to understand whether we could support the provisions. We think the intention is great. I agree with Mrs Newman that there are lots of other issues surrounding this flood in our nation that is causing so much damage that needs to be addressed, and not just through this change in the law. It is a good start and we are keen to support it, but we are also keen to make sure that it is sound legislation.

It is pleasing to note that all parties in this House will support the first reading of this bill and commend it being referred to the select committee. The purpose of the bill is to ensure that the Misuse of Drugs Act does exactly what its objective is—that is, to prevent the misuse of drugs. Whilst we can have a debate around the detail of that, it is pleasing that all parties will support this bill.

I regret the stance taken by a number of members in some of their observations. Whenever Muriel Newman stands up in this House I feel like running for the Prozac bottle—although I have never taken it. She is the most depressing person to listen to in this House. In Māori terms there is a thing called aahua, and when people have aahua they bubble, there is an effervescence about them, and there is a spirit in them. But every time Muriel Newman walks down to this House, one really wonders why she gets out of bed in the morning. She can always see the most ugly, evil, venal, and vile things in the world. That is all that particular party can talk about. No wonder it is tracking at around 2 percent!

Also, I disagree absolutely with the comments made by the Green member Nandor Tanczos. The reality is that it does not matter whether it is P today; it will be something in another 2, 3, 4, or 5 years, whether it is called L, Z, or Y. Our police force, as one part of combating drug abuse in our country, needs to be empowered to do the job properly. This Government has acted accordingly, not just in regard to this legislation but on a whole matrix of issues with regard to the misuse of drugs. It voted $19.6 million for a hunt-and-kill unit in the New Zealand Police. As that unit starts to bite in, it must start to attack gang networks, gang distribution lines, and gang production lines. Long may the Black Power and the Mongrel Mob be members of the new Māori Party!

We must toughen up our ability to hunt down the people who visit the type of mayhem, hurt, and carnage on our streets that our health and social services always end up having to pick up. We can no longer continue to tolerate the flower of New Zealand youth being burnt and blasphemed in this particular way, and this legislation goes a long way to ensure that the police have the authority and power to move very quickly against those who are storing the precursors and using them in a production capacity. It also allows them to hunt and trace very quickly those who run the distribution networks, and so on. So I commend it.

I would like to acknowledge and thank the Hon Jim Anderton for championing issues relevant to alcohol and drug abuse and alcohol and drug suicide amongst our youth population. In conclusion, I would like to invite “Tony Vile” not to conduct himself in his normal naughty, venal little way, and not to just be a wonderful consort and support to Madam Newman. I commend the bill to the select committee. I know that it will give this legislation careful and considered thought and report back a bill that we should all be proud of supporting.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this very important Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 2). I note it is the third amendment. The last one was just some time ago. That very much highlights the fact that the P epidemic in New Zealand is becoming increasingly serious, and the criminals involved in it are becoming increasingly cunning, devious, and manipulative. It is vital that the legislation is appropriate in that it enables them to be tracked down.

There are some concerns about civil liberties in terms of this bill, and the National Party shares those concerns. However, it is important, because of the incredibly increasingly serious situation in New Zealand, that the police and the Customs Service are able to show very tough action towards the criminals involved in the escalating P epidemic in New Zealand. It is important to remember exactly how fast this epidemic has occurred and how tardy the Labour Government has been in terms of responding. Back in 1996 we saw the first clandestine P laboratory busted by the police. In 2000 there were nine laboratories, in 2001 there were 147, and in the first 10 months of 2003 something like 146 clandestine laboratories were closed down. One wonders what the Government has been doing—

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: Sleeping!

That is absolutely right. The evidence was there back in 1999.

The point that Muriel Newman made with regard to the under-resourcing of the Institute of Environmental Science and Research is absolutely right. One of the major problems we have is that it is overwhelmed with work, and under-resourced in terms of both money and the ability to have forensic scientists. The point she made about putting this sort of thing out to private contract, as is done in Britain, and bringing down the huge backlog in our courts, is absolutely relevant. I am very concerned when I hear the Hon John Tamihere say such inappropriate things about a very good member who has taken the trouble to go to the Institute of Environmental Science and Research and actually look at the background problems that are holding up the process in New Zealand. It seems to me that the Government has failed to go into the details. With these things, it is always the details that are so important.

I also note that some years ago, I think it was 2002, it was pointed out that methamphetamine was selling on New Zealand streets for about $100 to $180 per gram, and P was selling for $1,000 per gram. That was in 2002 when, in comparison, a tablet of LSD could be purchased for approximately $30 to $40, and 1.5 grams of cannabis could be bought for $20. That just demonstrates how hugely important this drug has become to the gangs that are dependent upon it for their feeding frenzy on the vulnerable throughout New Zealand.

I think what Judy Turner mentioned about presumption of supply going from 56 grams with a street value of $56,000, down to 5 grams with a street value, when converted to pure methamphetamine, of $5,000, is right. I think it is very important that the select committee looks at that very carefully. It is a huge amount, and is still enough to ensure that the gangs are intimately interested; I do not think that amount is little enough to stop their commercial interest.

I think it is also very important to point out just how addictive this drug and its precursors are. We heard Nandor Tanczos earlier on scoffing at the importance of the precursors, ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, being included in this bill. They are hugely important. It is so easy to convert them into pure P. The points that he made really make me wonder, once again, about the relevance of the Greens in this Parliament. There is a hugely important chain going from the precursors to the final manufactured article, pure P.

P is highly addictive. It affects all sectors of the social strata, and associated with it, unfortunately, are bizarre psychological reactions that are completely unpredictable and that, at times, have been demonstrated to be utterly devastating. I think Judith Collins made the point we have a huge problem with alcohol in this country; yes, we do, but what has been so scary about the P epidemic is that it has been rapidly escalating over the last 3 to 4 years.

Only 3 years ago we were going through the debate on marijuana. I remember one of the submitters from Northland telling us: “Please don’t change the law, because if marijuana is legalised, then the gangs will be getting on to the hard drugs.” The hugely worrying thing is that in those 3 short years the gangs have gone on to the hard drugs, and now they are not only endemic but epidemic in New Zealand.

I think my colleague Judith Collins also mentioned the point about the pharmacies throughout New Zealand, which, indeed, have done a very good job in trying to make domestic availability and accessibility to criminals much more difficult. Indeed, they should be praised throughout the country for the efforts they have made in that respect.

Clearly, there are two major areas that this bill is concentrating on. The first is the presumption of supply. A variety of policy objectives are made, and presumption of supply matters are added to the Order in Council regime. Again, I remember only 2 years ago, or even less, the Regulations Review Committee being very concerned about this mechanism. However, the point is that because the formulae of these drugs are so easy to change marginally, and because the criminals have got on to that, it is vital to have a ready-response mechanism available to Parliament—to the legislation—so that there can be a quick response. Amending the presumption of supply for methamphetamine is, obviously, absolutely appropriate, as is adding a Ministry of Justice official to the expert advisory committee on drugs. The second main amendment relates to concerns about the increasing prevalence of methamphetamine use and importations of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, which are believed to be destined for the manufacture of methamphetamine.

Certainly, some pretty strong changes are made in this bill relating to searches of persons involved in delivery. Clearly, in terms of the civil liberty protections, it is very important to have protocols that do indeed safeguard the police, the customs officers, and the people who are perpetrating the crimes. For searches associated with detention warrants, there are carefully spelt out protocols relating to the definition of rub-down searches and the definition of strip searches. Yes, they are tough measures, but, yes, it is absolutely relevant that they be carried out. We saw just a few weeks ago a huge quantity of P brought in through a lava lamp. We are pretty sure that large quantities are brought through on persons these days. It is vital to have extremely reactive measures to combat this problem, and I certainly support this amendment bill being referred to the select committee.

I am pleased to take a call on the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3), and to follow that sensible member in Opposition, because this bill is one of the strategies that, as members of Parliament, we feel we can get our heads round to prevent the misuse of drugs. It is a responsibility of every leader, as a member of Parliament, to show leadership on this issue, particularly given the extent of the use of methamphetamine in this country. It is baked in labs in neighbourhoods that one would not believe, and is endangering the lives of mothers and children in kitchens around the country. Leaders in this House must act of one accord to help the police and the Customs Service in their endeavours constantly to minimise the impact of these precursors on our society.

It was interesting today to hear the Hon Rick Barker’s response. I would just like to repeat that we have this year seized 10 kilos of crystal methamphetamine, compared with 0.9 kilos the year before, and have also seized 1.3 million ephedrine and pseudoephedrine tablets, which is more than double the amount seized the year before. I think the Misuse of Drugs Act scheduling process is starting to kick in, when we see that sort of yield through customs. I remember working with the Hon Wyatt Creech when we first considered the Misuse of Drugs Bill and put in this unique scheduling through Order in Council. We all talked about expeditious scheduling, and we all did not quite realise just how often we would be revisiting the Misuse of Drugs Act in terms of giving a very flexible and fast-action response to the recommendations of the expert advisory committee on drugs about rescheduling, about dealing with issues of importation, and about cutting off supply at the borders of this country.

I am pleased to see that now a Ministry of Justice official will go on to the expert advisory committee. At the time we introduced the legislation, we did not consider that was necessary. It is great to see that we always have a flexible response to the way in which we deal with those issues.

The one other thing I want to do today—because I have heard about the presumption of supply that will be dealt with through this legislation—is congratulate the Associate Minister of Health Jim Anderton on his Community Action on Youth and Drugs initiatives around the country. There were five when we got into Government, and this year we put $2.55 million more into building up 15 more of those programmes around the country. I assure the House that wherever I go—places such as Thames and the Coromandel, where I was just last week—people ask how they could get one of the Community Action on Youth and Drugs programmes. Murupara wanted a Community Action on Youth and Drug programme, so did Rotorua, and many other communities are saying that the programme is having an effect.

I am sure that, along with introducing this legislation, we will keep up our war on the misuse of drugs in this country. I look forward to this bill coming to our committee.

It is most interesting to hear members’ contributions on legislation like this—particularly that from the member for Rotorua, in light of her support for the decriminalisation of cannabis. I draw the House’s attention to how long it has taken this Government to deal with this issue, which was identified way back at the end of 1999. It has taken this Government ages and ages to deal with an issue. It cannot help but convey the impression that it is half-hearted about it. It took this Government 4 years to reclassify methamphetamine as a class A drug. Does that portray any sense of urgency in this Parliament?

This is another case of Mr Anderton introducing a bill and not understanding the consequences of what he is doing. He brought in a bill that is now known as the “Sherry Tax Bill”, claiming that it would curb under-age drinking. I am sure we have all seen children under bridges with bottles of Madeira! That turned out to be a lot of nonsense.

What I want to alert that Minister to is that this bill effectively decriminalises the use of needles for injecting illegal drugs. If this legislation is passed, effectively it will no longer be an offence to have needles for injecting illegal drugs. It will no longer be an offence, because the police will find it nigh on impossible to prosecute any intravenous drug user who possesses a needle. This bill is part of this Government’s politically correct approach to drugs. I suspect that this Government has us on a path to legalised injecting rooms. That is where this decision takes us.

The Government says it wants to protect the police and to encourage intravenous drug users to be more responsible. It claims that the police are arresting hundreds of people for carrying legal needles, but that is nonsense. This afternoon I spoke to a senior drug investigator in this country, who said that people are arrested, not because they have one of these needles, but because they are housing the needle in an unsafe way. There is a requirement that people house needles in a safe place, and often those people are prosecuted because the needles are not being housed safely. They are also prosecuted in association with other drug-related crimes—generally, the possession of illegal substances. In fact, the numbers that the Government quotes in its own documents, which we have been able to get from the Ministry of Health website, are a load of nonsense. That senior drug investigator told me that under these changes it will be nigh on impossible for the police to prosecute people for possessing needles for the purpose of injecting illegal drugs.

So what is the Government doing here? Right now, section 13 of the Misuse of Drugs Act states that every person commits an offence who has a needle or syringe for the purpose of committing an offence under that Act—that is, for injecting drugs. The exception is if a person possesses that needle because he or she got it from a needle exchange programme. That latter part is in the health regulations. Instead of taking those regulations and putting them in the Act, what has the Government done? The Government has done this: instead of requiring the drug user to prove that the needles came from a needle exchange, it will now be up to the police to prove that the needles did not come from a needle exchange, and that the person who illegally has those needles obtained them believing that the person he or she got them from was not entitled to them.

Let us go through what the hoops are. Instead of the drug user having to prove that he or she is part of the needle exchange, and providing a certificate or something like that, it will now be up to the police to prove that the needles did not come from the needle exchange, and that the person who has those needles knew that they did not come from the needle exchange. That just makes it so much harder for the police to obtain prosecutions against users of drugs who have this paraphernalia. Effectively, this measure decriminalises the possession of needles for injecting illegal drugs.

I will tell members something: I bet that Jim Anderton does not even realise that. I think he has been misled by his officials, just as he was with the sherry tax. Members might remember that he said in Parliament that that legislation was about targeting teenage drinking, then was absolutely humiliated when the Opposition National Party said that it was about putting up the tax on Madeira, sherry, and fortified wines, which are not the drinks of choice of teenage drinkers. With this bill, he has not asked the questions. He is reversing the onus, and that will make it harder for the New Zealand Police to obtain prosecutions against people who are illegally in possession of needles. There is no argument for that.

I pulled from the Ministry of Health website the review of the needle exchange programme, and it is the recommendation of that programme that the New Zealand Parliament approve the proposed amendment that would remove the offence of possession of needles and syringes legally obtained through the needle exchange programme. Well, the Government has gone further than that. Effectively, it is decriminalising the possession of needles for illegal drug use. This Government just does not get it. Corner dairies and shops in Auckland sell pipes for methamphetamine. They say they are ornaments and are not used in the performance of an illegal activity. This Government should be moving to make those items illegal. This Government should be moving to make P pipes illegal, but, instead, it is moving to decriminalise the use of needles for injecting illegal drugs.

It is all part of a politically correct, liberal agenda being pushed by this Government and the health authorities under the name of harm minimisation, when what is required is leadership that says this stuff is wrong and should be stopped. This afternoon I spoke to one of the leading drug educators in this country—

💬 Simon Power: It’s true; the member did.

I did. I asked her why she thought the Government was doing this, and her clear answer was that it was all part of the politically correct, soft-on-drugs agenda that we are seeing from the Government time and time again. I want to tell the House that the National Party in Opposition will oppose these changes to the needle exchange. Why would we make it harder for the police to secure a prosecution against an intravenous drug user who has those needles and is using them in an illegal way? I cannot believe that Mr Anderton would agree with that. I think that, as with the sherry tax, he has been fooled. Let me remind the House again of what is happening. Instead of the drug user having to prove that the needles came from the needle exchange, then getting off the charge, the police now have to prove that the needles did not come from the drug exchange, and that the person who has the needles knew they did not come from the needle exchange. Well, how hard will that be for the police to prove? The advice I have received from a senior police drug investigator this afternoon is that it will be nigh on impossible.

The Government is absolutely wrong on this. It is late to the party on dealing with the methamphetamine crisis, and it will cause another problem—which it does not need to cause—with its plan to decriminalise the possession of needles for the purpose of illegal drug use.

Bill read a first time, and referred to the Health Committee.