Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3)

I move, That the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) be now read a second time. The bill, with amendments made by the Health Committee, updates our law relating to the prevention of drug abuse and makes it more responsive to changes in illicit drug trends in New Zealand. In particular, the bill allows presumption of supply matters to be amended by Order in Council, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, which, members may recall, means that the matter goes to the Health Committee, it can be vetoed there, and reported to the House. The House is still in control of its own affairs, of course, but there is a process that the House is involved in. The bill also sets the presumption of supply amount for methamphetamine at 5 grams, rather than the present default amount of 56 grams, and it removes the ability for the classification level of a controlled drug to be decreased, or a classification to be removed by Order in Council alone and the affirmative resolution procedure.

The bill adds a Ministry of Justice official to the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs, creates new offences of importing and exporting precursor substances—that is, ingredients like ephedrine and pseudoephedrine for the manufacture of dangerous drugs like methamphetamines—creates new powers of search and seizure without warrant for ephedrine and pseudoephedrine; and allows controlled deliveries of precursor substances, which is a mechanism used by the Customs Service and the police. It moves the defence to the offence of possessing a needle or syringe from the regulations to the principal Act, and reverses the onus of proof to the prosecution. This is an unusual procedure, but it is, of course, a preventive health measure. The bill adds a new restricted substances part to the legislation. and regulates benzylpiperazine, also called “party pills”, as restricted substances.

The Health Committee has worked hard on its consideration of this legislation, especially with regard to the new restricted substances part of the bill that will immediately regulate the substance benzylpiperazine, commonly found in party pills, and restrict its sale and supply to those aged over 18 years. It will also allow in the future for the potential regulation of similar substances as Parliament deems appropriate and based on evidence as it comes to hand. I would like to thank all members of the Health Committee for that valuable work. I know that it was not straightforward and that complex issues were raised in the course of their consideration. I know that, because I was invited to meet with them to discuss those concerns, and we were able to offer some solutions to help ensure the smooth and timely passage of this important legislation.

I am pleased to see that the Health Committee saw fit to accept many of those solutions—for example, actually scheduling benzylpiperazine as a restricted substance into the bill itself. However, I also note that the committee has decided to narrow the definition of substances to be covered by the new part, as members felt that existing legislation, rather than the new restricted substances schedule, could be more appropriately used to regulate substances such as butane and other solvents that are subject to abuse by some of our young people, although they are licit or legal substances. I must admit that I am a little disappointed by that approach, but I have asked my ministerial colleagues to set a high priority on investigating how existing legislation could be used, as that is the view of the committee. If those investigations show that we have relevant existing legislation, then, of course, we should use it as soon as possible. However, whether we can use existing legislation is not at all clear-cut.

Members are likely to have read in the Christchurch Press a report of a novelty product being sold in Christchurch recently that contained a potentially fatal mixture of butane and propane. Someone decided it could be used for intoxication at a rugby match. That led to some young kids buying it and suffering potentially serious side effects from its use. My office has sought advice from the Minister of Consumer Affairs about possible action under existing legislation, given that this product is being sold as a novelty for use at rugby and other sports games. I have yet to receive formal advice on this matter. Officials are also continuing to look at other relevant legislation, because this Labour-Progressive coalition Government will act where it can to stop the misuse of potentially dangerous products.

Should the investigation into existing regulatory controls for this product and other substances result in showing that existing regulation is inadequate, then I have also asked my colleagues to consider further legislation, either as a completely separate stand-alone restricted substances Act, as the Health Committee has suggested, or perhaps in a form found in some other jurisdictions. The United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States, for example, have specific laws that make it an offence for a retailer to supply or offer to supply to a person under 18 years of age a substance where there is reasonable cause to believe that the substance will be used for intoxication purposes.

I am determined that the problem of volatile substance abuse is not put in the too-hard basket. Parliament is responsible for studying how best we should act, and then to act. Members will be well aware, I am sure, that coroners around the country have been asking for action, as they deal with a number of tragic deaths of vulnerable young people from this form of substance abuse. I am sure that everyone in Parliament is of the view that we must collectively respond where we possibly can to the community’s demand for action. I recommend this bill for further passage through the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this very important Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3). As the Hon Jim Anderton pointed out, there are some very important aspects of this bill related to its initial intention—that is, to restrict and control the use of serious controlled drugs. It is a shame that we no longer see Mr Anderton here, because—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member knows that that is outside the Standing Orders.

I am sorry, Mr Assistant Speaker. What I was going to say was that Jim Anderton has finally emerged from his dinosaurian sleep to realise that people using party pills, herbal highs, and a vast spectrum of mildly psychoactive substances, should, indeed, deserve attention. But what he has done is add a Supplementary Order Paper that violates some of the basic democratic principles on which this Parliament is founded. Although the National Party certainly supports the original part of this bill—that is, to deal with presumption of supply matters, and amphetamine in particular—it creates new offences of importing and exporting precursor substances; creates powers of searches and seizures, without warrant, for ephedrine and pseudoephedrine; and allows controlled delivery of precursor substances, these which have, undoubtedly, a very strong scientific evidence base of needing attention by the Parliament.

What the National Party is concerned about is the Jim Anderton Supplementary Order Paper, which has now become Part 3 of the bill and which we believe is highly inappropriate.

It is important to understand the history of this legislation. It was realised in the late 1990s that the new amphetamines, LSD, and various other controlled drugs, were becoming a very, very serious scourge on the horizon in New Zealand. That issue was certainly made more and more apparent as we saw the P clandestine laboratories suddenly sprouting up, right around New Zealand. In fact, I think their emergence was quite prolific from about 1996, although it was not until 2000 that nine laboratories were pounced upon by the police. But by 2003, something like 146 clan-labs were discovered by the police, and it has become worse and worse throughout the country.

In fact, I was on a forum the other day where one of the police officers said that wherever one goes in New Zealand, within 10 kilometres there is likely to be an illicit clan-lab. As it turned out, where we were, in the rural part of the Waikato, two clan-labs were discovered within the next few weeks.

There is no doubt that the methamphetamines and pure P have extraordinarily detrimental aspects to them, and the problem is getting worse and worse. The objective evidence is that the use of these drugs can cause serious health effects, including paranoia, hallucinations, mood disturbance, delusions, and, potentially, death. We have seen throughout the country some really disastrous instances where people using these medications have carried out the most bizarre and serious attacks on people, attacks that have resulted in death.

It was because of this, in the 1990s, that Wyatt Creech initiated a bill whereby there could be some ready recourse to keeping up with the drug dealers and the rapid changes of formula that they had for those medications, so that they could find that on one occasion a drug could be legal but, within a month, the formulation would be changed and it would be illegal.

Hence, the affirmative resolution process was somewhat reluctantly embarked on with the original Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill for these controlled drugs. The National Party has supported that move, and we have supported the extreme measures that the Customs Service and the police force require to track down the perpetrators who sell those drugs, particularly to young people around New Zealand. It is becoming a very, very serious problem and, in these circumstances, particularly serious responses are needed in the legislation.

But it does seem to be a great worry when, finally, Jim Anderton wakes up to the fact that party pills, herbal highs, and substances like benzylpiperazine, are causing problems around the country. In actual fact, they have been around for the last 10 years or so and, again, the objective evidence is that while they have mild psychoactive effects, they in no way come into the class of the controlled substances whereby the affirmative resolution process has been enacted.

I think that it is important to point out some of the aspects of the advice that members of the Regulations Review Committee gave to the select committee. They warned strongly against the liberal use or the proliferation of the affirmative resolution procedure. In fact, they said the amendment of primary legislation by an Order in Council is commonly referred to as a “Henry VIII” clause, and is regarded as being undesirable because it allows the executive the power to override Parliament. Such powers should be granted by Parliament rarely and with strict controls.

It is a great concern to me that Jim Anderton has suddenly woken up to the fact that there are party pills and other such substances around the country, and he is bringing in a Supplementary Order Paper that was willingly embraced by the Labour Government, even though the Regulations Review Committee made very, very clear warnings.

It said: “In particular, we consider objections can be raised to the following: amendment of primary legislation by an Order in Council, except in rare cases and with strict controls; allowing matters of significant policy to be dealt with and delegated, rather than primary legislation.”, and it goes on to state: “If a matter needs to be dealt with urgently, there are ways of dealing with primary legislation in an expeditious manner.”—and, of course, that is the case. It is quite clear that those restricted substances should have their own legislation. It should be well-thought-out, it should be well considered. The National Party agrees that this is a major problem in New Zealand, but it should not be addressed by legislation that is quite inappropriate and, according to the Regulations Review Committee, this legislation is absolutely inappropriate.

In fact, its recommendations were absolutely clear. It stated: “We are of the view that there are significant issues with Jim Anderton’s SOP, and we recommend the following: that amendments to the schedule concerned, ‘Restricted Substances’, should be made by primary legislation, not by Order in Council.” It goes on to state: “Regulations should only override the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 in rare cases in very limited terms.”

This a very important bill. It addresses a very important subject. The National Party will indeed support it, but we will not support Jim Anderton’s Supplementary Order Paper 298 substituting Part 3 of the bill, which we believe is highly injudicious.

I have just come from my office, where I have been answering emails from people who support the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3). They are people who deal with teenagers and with a lot of young people, and who deal with the health system. Today I have also just been interviewed by a student who asked me about the select committee processes and how members work together. I am pleased to say that, largely, the Health Committee members worked very constructively together on this bill. I particularly thank Judy Turner of United Future, who worked through some of her differences on this bill. We came to very effective compromises and showed how political parties can work together constructively for the benefit of New Zealand, and not just grandstand, which is what we have seen very recently from the National Party.

I am on both the Regulations Review Committee and the Health Committee, and I know that the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) is one that does use the affirmative resolution process. It uses that process because, as Dr Hutchison knows, new party pills and new concoctions that are very detrimental to the young people who access and use them come on the market very, very quickly, and we need a very quick response to that situation. I particularly noted the submission made by the National Council of Women, which recognised the need for the affirmative resolution process that we use in this bill in the response to drugs. As Dr Hutchison said, we are talking about rare cases. There are strict controls. There is an expert advisory committee, which—as Dr Hutchison knows—is made up of medics who have expertise in the area and are well able to advise the Minister on the new drugs that come on the market, and on how we need to respond to them.

I am surprised that Dr Hutchison would want us to wait for a year, as he said in his minority report, before we respond to such drugs. I am also very interested to note that he took no notice of Dr Tonia Nicholson—

💬 Dr Paul Hutchison: You waited a year for the bill to come in.

Dr Hutchison has had his turn. Dr Tonia Nicholson is—

💬 Katherine Rich: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member who is speaking continues to call Dr Hutchison “Dr Hutchinson”. I think she should call him by his correct name: Hutchison.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member.

I did intend to say Hutchison. I am sorry if I mispronounced it or the member heard it in that way. I am sorry that my enunciation was not clear enough for the Opposition members, but I do try to speak clearly. [Interruption] That is a waste of time. I do not wish to waste the House’s time on such trivialities.

We are dealing with very serious issues to do with young people’s lives. I thank Dr Tonia Nicholson, an expert who works in the accident and emergency department at Waikato Hospital, for her submission on the bill and for advising us about the great seriousness of the problem. She would actually ban all these drugs altogether. She pointed out, as Dr Hutchison has not done, that the problem is not just party pills. It is when drink and party pills, or an upper and a downer, are taken together that we end up with young people in Waikato Hospital on a Saturday night. So it is very, very important that we process this bill. As a member of both the Health Committee and the Regulations Review Committee, and considering that we are passing legislation that concerns the lives of young people and that we want to protect them in the very best ways possible, I advocate that we pass this bill as quickly as possible.

On behalf of New Zealand First, I rise to support the second reading of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3). As the Associate Minister of Health, the Hon Jim Anderton, has stated, this bill has some very important aims. It will create new offences of importing and exporting precursor substances. It will create powers of search and seizure without warrant for ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. It amends the presumption of supply. Importantly, it regulates the selling of benzylpiperazine and other party drugs. It also adds a Ministry of Justice official to the membership of the expert advisory committee, among a whole list of other aims.

All of these measures are absolutely essential. We in New Zealand First recognise the harm that is caused by drugs, particularly methamphetamines. It is a growing and increasingly serious problem. We quite often read in the newspapers that the police are dealing with an increasing number of labs for the manufacture of methamphetamines. That is simply the tip of the iceberg. Far more of these labs have not been found. Despite the number of prosecutions and the dismantling of labs, this continues to be a thriving industry. Unfortunately, we have people who profit from other people’s addiction, and they are the people who own many of the labs. We must praise the pharmacists in Rotorua who have gone out of their way not to stock pseudoephedrine at all, in an attempt to ensure that it is unavailable in their town, and we must acknowledge all of the other pharmacists who have taken these products off their shop shelves and put them out the back so that they can carefully monitor their purchase.

There has been a big increase in the usage of methamphetamines, both those manufactured here and those imported into this country illegally. Currently, there is no offence relating to the import or export of precursor substances for the manufacture of illicit drugs. Customs officers who discover these substances cannot take much action at all under the current law. We on the Health Committee were told that the only charge that can be laid is a charge of possession, because this is an area where the law has not kept up with the influx of designer drugs that are now available. This is further complicated by the fact that possession is impossible to prove in cargo and mail interception, because no person is in physical possession or control of the particular substance. It is absolutely essential to close these loopholes, and that is what this bill does. We need to ensure that customs officers and the police have the powers to detect effectively the presence of controlled drugs and take the appropriate action.

It is time this House faced up to the fact that there is a tremendous amount of illegal and illicit drug use here in New Zealand. Drugs are illegal and illicit because they do incredible harm and no good whatsoever. They have no benefits for the people who use them. Instead, these people become trapped, and any control they have had over their lives is absolutely lost. What is the point of taking a trip and never leaving one’s room in one’s house? It is a total waste of time and money, and worse still are the lasting after-effects. We in New Zealand First definitely do not subscribe to the view that illegal and illicit drugs are good for us; they simply are not.

We definitely support the regulation of benzylpiperazine and other party pills that can be developed by these smart operators. The rapid expansion in the availability and use of these drugs requires urgent attention. We believe that Mr Anderton’s Supplementary Order Paper does not sufficiently address the problems created by the increasing use of party pills. We believe that this group of substances should be treated in exactly the same way as all other controlled drugs, and included on the appropriate schedule. We believe that party pills should be classified as controlled drugs. We ask why we would want to test the water with both feet. There has been insufficient research into the long-term effects of party pills. It is extremely difficult to see how a substance used as a treatment for internal parasites in cattle can be beneficial to humans. Such substances cause an increase in heart rate, blood pressure, and body temperature, hallucinations, convulsions, and respiratory depression. Why should these types of substances be classified as low-risk substances? They have no known nutritional or therapeutic use for humans, so how can they be considered beneficial? They are definitely not dietary supplements in any way. We need more information on these particular party pills and their effects. We believe that greater caution is needed. We do not want to see a whole sector of New Zealanders, 10 or 20 years down the track, harmed by these party pills.

The Health Committee saw some information from the customs area. Mr Williamson, the manager of drug investigations for the New Zealand Customs Service, said that the pills are central nervous stimulants, and there is evidence becoming available now that suggests that they are toxic in content and damaging to the brain at high doses. Why are we ensuring that they are available to our young people in New Zealand? We have all read the stories of young people having adverse reactions to those substances. Some have mixed alcohol with them, others may have taken their usual prescription medicines with them, and others may have had more than the amount recommended on the packet. No one is really sure what has actually happened in some of those instances.

The worst of it is that the lack of manufacturing requirements means that anything and everything can go into their manufacture. Like many other MPs today, I received a letter from the Social Tonics Association. That organisation has stated: “There are a small number of operators, particularly in the Christchurch region, who do not value community safety. These operators are exploiting the currently unregulated market and producing low-quality products containing between 500 and 700 milligrams of BZP without labels or warnings. The level of BZP is two to three times higher than the dosages outlined as potentially dangerous by the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs.” So they do not have a good effect on humans.

We read in the newspapers of many negative experiences from benzylpiperazine. We read of a Christchurch schoolgirl who had been experimenting with these party drugs who has joined calls for a total ban. She was hospitalised and took a long time to recover from the effects of those drugs. We are concerned about the long-term effects of those drugs, as there has been no research at all into those effects. Until the drugs can be guaranteed to be completely harmless, we do not believe that they should be legally available for sale. We look forward to the expert advisory committee completing some further research into the particular harms associated with using these pills, and we will also put forward a Supplementary Order Paper calling for these substances to be put on to a controlled schedule. We know that they are pouring into the country, and we do not want to see harm resulting from them.

I stand to speak to the second reading of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3). For a variety of reasons, ACT New Zealand is opposing the passage of the bill as reported back from the Health Committee. We would have liked to be in a position to support the bill for the contribution that it could make to the control of the possession and supply of dangerous drugs, and, in particular, of the methamphetamine drugs using ephedrine and pseudoephedrine bases. Other members have highlighted the dangerous nature of those drugs and the effects that they have on people’s lives. Certainly, we would have liked to be able to support the bill for that reason. Parts 1 and 2 of this bill are the relevant parts here.

But we have before us today a very untidy piece of legislation. Supplementary Order Paper 298 in the name of the Hon Jim Anderton came to the select committee, so that it could undergo the submission process. Of course, that was right and proper, and it is what should happen with regard to all legislation. Unfortunately, we now have that Supplementary Order Paper tacked on to the end of the very sensible Parts 1 and 2, as Part 3 of the bill. Parts 1 and 2 are about the control, possession, and supply of dangerous drugs, and Part 3 is about drugs of a very different nature—at the moment, benzylpiperazine-related drugs. The other problem with that Supplementary Order Paper was that it came to the select committee with a blank schedule. Just about every member of the committee was very unhappy with the fact that a schedule with absolutely nothing on it was to be attached to legislation, with no guidance as to what may go on that schedule. In the interim, the benzylpiperazine family of drugs has been added to schedule 4 of the bill.

It was interesting to hear members of the various parties—and I think everyone who has spoken so far has done so—stand up and say how terrible it is that those party pills are on the market and available, and say that their regulation needs to happen. Interestingly, when I wrote a letter to the select committee in September 2002, soon after being elected to Parliament, highlighting the fact that benzylpiperazine-based drugs were being sold to minors in Star Marts and service stations around the country, there was absolutely no concern from a single member of that committee—neither from Dianne Yates, who was on the committee at the time, and who has stood up now and told us what terrible things those drugs are for Hamilton youth, nor from anybody else. Many of those committee members have now moved on to other committees, but none of them were in support of my concern. My letter was sent to the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs—just as a formality really, to pacify me—and it too wrote back stating that it had absolutely no concern about the drugs. The whole concern was dismissed completely out of hand. Two and a half years down the track, we are suddenly very concerned about these substances, although I suppose it is better late than never. My concern about them is that they are available to minors, and the regulation that will be applied to them in that regard will, in fact, be a good thing. But this legislation is not the right place for that, and for that reason ACT will oppose the bill.

We also oppose the widespread and proliferating use of Orders in Council through the affirmative resolution process. When bills come before the select committee, we often have submissions from the Regulations Review Committee, which usually gives very sensible and sound advice. That was certainly the case with regard to this bill. Committee members noted that they were unhappy about the use of the affirmative resolution process, and warned that that should not proliferate. I am in complete agreement with them on that point. They noted that the affirmative resolution procedure allows a truncated legislative process, but considered that that had considerable drawbacks. In particular, the procedure allows significant matters of policy and principle to be dealt with in delegated legislation as opposed to primary legislation, where they felt those things would be much better dealt with. The process also allows only a limited time for select committee scrutiny. One of the beauties, as I have often said in this House, of our select committee process is that as we go through the submission process, the public have a great opportunity to come before the committee and submit, and we hear a wide range of views as a result of having that thorough scrutiny. The Regulations Review Committee said that it was worried that a truncation of the system would lead to insignificant access for the public to be consulted or insufficient time for substantial consideration of policy rationale—and I certainly agree with those comments.

The Regulations Review Committee also considered that there should be compelling reasons for applying the affirmative resolution process when primary legislation was being amended in respect of serious offences. It noted that the affirmative resolution process is justifiable in only limited and exceptional circumstances, including those where there is a need for expeditious change or where significant matters of health and safety are at issue. The Order in Council process, using the affirmative resolution process, certainly does not qualify in this case, when my highlighting the matter to the select committee in 2002 did not actually come to anything for 2½ years. That is hardly an urgent matter requiring expeditious treatment. At the end of the day, to my great consternation, the Regulations Review Committee’s advice has been largely ignored in this instance, and ACT New Zealand would like to voice its vigorous disapproval of that.

One thing that the bill does do, by having the benzylpiperazine-based products—the herbal highs, the party pills, or whatever one wants to call them—in the same legislation as the more dangerous drugs such as methamphetamines, is to promote draconian powers in relation to substances such as the benzylpiperazine-based products, which, at the moment anyway, appear to be little more insidious or addictive than alcohol, nicotine, or the many other harmful but not necessarily catastrophic substances. This bill has not weighed the costs properly against the benefits. The normal process of legislative change is a safeguard to ad hoc hysteria and is one of the reasons that we have a very thorough parliamentary process.

With regard to new section 4(1AA) inserted by clause 5 of the bill, ACT finds it bizarre that people’s liberties will be able to be removed by ministerial decree, although all the machinery of Parliament will be needed to reduce regulation. So things can be put on a schedule at the whim of a Minister, yet in order to have anything removed from a schedule someone will have to go through the slow, laborious process of Parliament. That is absolutely bizarre and ridiculous and, if anything, it should have been around the other way. The provision was, of course, intended to pacify the United Future party in relation to its concerns about cannabis—nothing more, nothing less. ACT New Zealand contends that the proper parliamentary scrutiny for all this legislation should be gone through, and that the Regulations Review Committee’s concerns about the Order in Council process should have been taken much more seriously and weighed more heavily.

ACT is opposing this bill, because it is very untidy, very messy legislation. It was rushed through the select committee. There was a lot of pressure on the committee, particularly to add Part 3 when many members favoured having Parts 1 and 2 stand apart. ACT New Zealand would have supported the bill had it remained that way; Part 3 should have been looked at completely separately. The policy work should have been done on it. The officials were under a great deal of pressure to move quickly, in order to have Part 3 ready in time to join Parts 1 and 2. That has been totally inappropriate, and for those reasons ACT New Zealand will oppose this bill.

The Green Party will support the bill and the Supplementary Order Paper that will be incorporated into it. Unlike the previous speaker, we actually think that it is very good that the Supplementary Order Paper introduces a new schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act, because we believe that drug policy should be consistent, should be integrated, and should be evidence-based. We believe that having one piece of legislation to deal with psychoactive drugs is important, although we acknowledge the member’s concerns that it is a hastily drafted bill. It is poorly put together. The substantial policy work has been done inadequately, so we think it is unfortunate that the quality of the bill is such as it is.

Nevertheless we do support it, because we think that it is a significant step forward. We think the Supplementary Order Paper is the most significant change, both in the long term, and in terms of its immediate effect. The Supplementary Order Paper enacts a new schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Act to allow some psychoactive substances to be restricted without being criminalised. That is a significant change in law in the way substances are regulated. It is designed to address the current free-for-all that exists around party pills, and in particular, piperazines such as benzylpiperazine.

“Is the law needed?”, some members may ask. Well, the industry has, to its credit, recognised a problem, and sought, through its industry body, Social Tonics Association of New Zealand, to introduce a voluntary code of practice. However, the association has, itself, called for legislation to cover its products as it currently has no ability to bring retailers and manufacturers into line who choose to simply ignore the code, because it is not enforceable.

It is a significant problem. While most places deal pretty well with it, and there are not many problems in most places, there are a number of cowboy operators, particularly in Christchurch, who do act irresponsibly and seem to have no recognition of their social responsibility. I was in Christchurch just this last weekend, and I visited a number of premises to see what they were selling, the nature of the sales, and what their marketing techniques were. I was disturbed to see a number of retailers selling little bags of pure benzylpiperazine powder. The labelling was there but it was so fuzzy that I could not read it, and the labelling was totally inadequate. Yet at the same time there are other products, such as this one I have here, which is very well labelled. The labelling is extremely clear, it is thorough, and it actually does the job that the industry voluntary code of practice requires it to do.

I think that the Health Committee saw a real advantage in creating enforceable and sensible restrictions such as an R18 limit, such as restrictions on how these products are advertised, such as labelling requirements, maximum dosage, and even manufacturing quality standards. What the bill does not do, and cannot do, because of the way the select committee has amended the definition of a substance, is regulate some of the other products that the Minister had hoped he might be able to regulate, such as nitrous oxide. The Minister has since had Crown Law advice that says that nitrous oxide is illegal to sell without a pharmacy licence. However, I think it is fair to say that the Crown Law advice is questionable. It is a grey area of the law, and is yet to be tested in the courts.

But it does seem to me to be crazy that if people are going to inhale nitrous oxide, they can go into a supermarket, buy it off the shelf, as long as they pretend they are making whipped cream out of it, and they can get no information about safety issues around inhaling it, apart from: “Don’t inhale it.” But what people cannot do is go to a shop and say: “Look, I’m going to be sucking this stuff up, and do you have any advice for me if I’m going to do so?”. That is now illegal, according to the Minister. It just shows the difference in approach between a punitive and a harm reduction approach.

However, we support the approach in this bill in terms of regulating benzylpiperazines. In fact, the Greens were the first parliamentary party to call for such regulation. When Australia and the United States banned benzylpiperazine, because in their countries they found that people were going to dance parties, taking it, and enjoying it, it was interesting that both the National Party and the ACT party immediately called for a clamp-down. The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs was asked to examine piperazines, and when it reported it repeated the same thing that the Green Party had been saying for some time. There is no statutory basis on which to ban these products. There is simply no evidence that they cause any particular harm. Moreover, the current law is inadequate, in that it provides no way of restricting them in any sensible way. The committeet said, as we had, that the law should be amended.

To its credit, the Government took up the Green Party’s suggestion to introduce a class D drug, and Supplementary Order Paper 298 is the result. It is a significant move by this Parliament, because it is a recognition by Parliament that just because people enjoy taking something is no reason to make them criminals. Just because they enjoy it is no reason to ban it. It is important also to recognise that the criminalisation of a substance can, in some circumstances, create more problems than the substance itself.

So we are pleased to support the bill. However, we recognise that it has a number of real problems. We tried to address them in the Health Committee, but we got no interest from its members, in general. There were some exceptions. I think Heather Roy expressed some concerns and solidarity, as did some others, as well, and I welcome that. But I think it fair to say that the majority of the committee just were not interested.

The first thing I would like to touch on is section 60, under the heading “Enforcement powers”, in the new Part 3 added by proposed new clause 32 in Supplementary Order Paper 298. It states that if an enforcement officer—that is, a health officer, or a member of the police—has reasonable grounds to believe that an offence under this provision has been, is being, or will be committed—if there is some reason to think that an offence may be committed in the future—then that person can go into the premises and seize any restricted substance, any document or record of any kind, or any other article relating to a restricted substance. Such officers can say that they think that a shop is about to commit an offence, so they can go in and seize all the products off its shelves, all its computer records, and all its advertising. What is more, there is no requirement that they ever have to give it back. They do not need a search warrant; they just need to believe that an offence is about to be committed. There is no requirement that after even a year they have to either press charges or give the property back. No, they can just hang on to it indefinitely.

I am highly critical of Crown Law advice, which did not even raise that as an issue in relation to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. We were told that the courts will, of course, apply New Zealand Bill of Rights Act standards. That is just not good enough. We believe that this is an issue, and I will move an amendment during the Committee stage to address it. It will provide that a search warrant is required and that there is some limitation on how long the substances can be held.

The other thing is that there is no requirement for either the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs or the select committee, when classifying a drug, to consult the wider public. They can do, but there is no requirement on them to do so. We think that that needs to be changed.

Another thing is the irrationality of having separate criteria, so that when the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs is looking at a drug in order to schedule it as a class A, B, or C drug, there is one set of criteria; and if it is to be scheduled as a D class, those criteria, plus additional criteria, apply. That says that it is already predetermining what it will recommend, before it has even looked at it. That is totally illogical. It makes no sense at all. Obviously, we should have one full set of criteria under which any substance is looked at, then the recommendation drops out of that. It is so obvious and logical that of course it was not supported by the select committee.

The final issue I would like to touch on relates to a last-minute amendment on behalf of the “UFO Party”—that is, the “United Future and Out-door Party”. It is an amendment not to the bill or to the Supplementary Order Paper but to the primary legislation. No notice was given to the public. It had no opportunity to make submissions. There was no opinion from the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs, because it had no opportunity. The reason was that the Supplementary Order Paper was introduced on the day the committee was supposed to deliberate. The amendment is to totally remove any evidence-based criteria from the way drugs are rescheduled. United Future has just launched its policy on drugs, in line with this, and it is the first policy I have ever seen where a party explicitly promises to ignore any evidence that does not conform to its preconceptions.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.