Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3)

This part of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) deals with search and seizure. It also deals with the ability of our police to be able to do their jobs at the border. We totally support Part 2. Our police and our border control people try to do a very good job there. They were very hamstrung by the fact that there was no ability to do anything about someone who turned up in New Zealand, having come from Asia or other places overseas, with case after case full of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, as a precursor drug for the manufacture of P. Obviously, if a case is opened and is found to be stuffed full of those pills, we know that the pills are not for regular use. But there was no legislation to prevent that from happening. The National Party totally supports being able to use the expeditious scheduling procedure, set up by Wyatt Creech, to enable those precursor substances to be put into the Misuse of Drugs Act, and to allow the police to then prosecute those who act to bring those sorts of precursor substances into New Zealand.

The people who are bringing the precursor substances in are doing it, simply and utterly, so that they can manufacture P. P has caused a huge amount of harm in our society. I remember when that first became an issue. A friend of mine who has since died, an older man who gave a great deal of community service, came to see me one day because he was part of Victim Support. He told me he could not believe what he was seeing. He was seeing men with good jobs, who had always been substantial members of the community, but who had just taken one of the party drugs because they were out somewhere and someone had offered it to them, and they had gone completely off their heads. They had attacked taxi-drivers, gone home and attacked their wives, and been involved in a huge number of violent episodes. He told me those people had ruined their lives, just through taking one pill.

When pseudoephedrine and ephedrine have become methamphetamine, they increase the neurotransmitters in the brain, and sometimes that makes people go absolutely crazy. Some horrendously violent crimes have been committed in this country by people who have been high on P. The other day a grandma came into my constituency clinic to talk to me about her grandson, who is 15 and is addicted to P. She was bringing her daughter to come and talk to me too, but the daughter was at home, dealing with the police, because the young man had threatened to kill his two sisters. They took it very seriously—and so they should—because the episodes of violent crime and the psychosis that we are seeing with methamphetamine usage are a very serious issue for New Zealand indeed, and our young people need to realise the substantial risk involved. But it is not just young people who are affected. As my friend Alan said to me, some older people in their 30s and 40s, who have been really good and substantial members of the community, have also been drawn into taking party pills or methamphetamine as a one-off, and are having severe episodes that have absolutely ruined their lives. We need to do everything we can to stop the people in this country who, for the sake of making a lot of money, engage in producing those drugs of abuse. National supports doing something about that.

I listened to some of the speeches, especially the ones given by United Future members, previously. I do not think they understand the issue. We totally support doing what we can to control any drug that the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs says has a high degree of harm. The issue is the process that is being used to regulate drugs of low harm, which is the classification the expert advisory committee gave to benzylpiperazine. The Health Committee had a huge amount of debate on how to do that.

Part 2 again is one of the very important parts of this bill because it allows our customs agents and other law-enforcement agents to react to the very, very extraordinary and special techniques that are being used more and more by some of the criminal gangs that are attempting to smuggle illicit drugs into New Zealand. The methods they are using are becoming more and more sophisticated and therefore it is hugely important to have a mechanism to meet the sorts of things they are doing to feed the drug trade in New Zealand, and to control the growing problem that we see here.

I do absolutely agree with my colleague Dr Lynda Scott, who mentioned just how drastic is the seriousness of the risks associated with some of these controlled drugs, such as methamphetamine and their precursors. There is no doubt that not only can they be addictive, but that the bizarre psychotic reactions associated with their ingestion have led to some of the most horrific crimes that we have seen in New Zealand’s history. Therefore, it is important that special legislative circumstances are taken to give the enforcement agents the required teeth necessary to make some difference.

I think it is important to reiterate once again that that is why the Hon Wyatt Creech brought in the expeditious scheduling of controlled drugs and their precursors. This is a very real and serious problem, and it is hugely important to use exceptional techniques for this problem in those unique situations. It is very important to realise that the expeditious scheduling and the affirmative resolution process should be used only for specifically unique circumstances.

This part of the bill deals with allowing delivery of unlawfully imported drugs for purposes of detection, seizure of items found during search warrants, and international controlled delivery and liability for offences. I think it is worth pointing out that new section 12D(3), inserted by clause 26, again provides for some exceptional circumstances. It states that a: “… Customs officer, or officer of a relevant law enforcement agency … who is involved in an international controlled delivery—(a) does not commit an offence under section 6(1)(a), 12AB, or 12AC of the principal Act by reason of taking part in that international controlled delivery; and (b) unless he or she is acting in bad faith, is not subject to any criminal or civil liability as a result of taking part in that international controlled delivery.”

One might say that some of the aspects of this part of the bill, including those involved with international controlled deliveries and rub-down searches and strip-searches that are required to occur, perhaps are exceptional things that normally we would not want to have other than under extreme circumstances. Well, the circumstances are extreme. That is why they are included in the bill. That is why the National Party has no hesitation in supporting this part of the bill. But even then, once again it is important to realise that some of the drug importers or smugglers into this country are using methods whereby people ingest packages and try to take them through the border. It is very important to be able to have the powers to confine those people in hotels, sometimes for up to 2 or 3 weeks, to wait for that package of a controlled substance to finally emerge so that an arrest can take place for that individual.

It is with a certain amount of trepidation that I take another call, because when I took what I thought was a reasonably moderate call on Part 1 and said that there were some concerns about giving powers to a Minister—not the Minister in the chair, Jim Anderton; I was not trying to be nasty to him—Jim Anderton of the Jim Anderton party, who is going to set up a regime that will live for a thousand years, got up and savaged me. As members can tell, I am quite nervous now, because I get worried when people savage me. I kept thinking that I have to pay respect to a man with Jim Anderton’s ability. No one in the history of this world has self-named a party, as that man has. There was the Napoleonic era, but did Napoleon call his party the “Napoleon Party”? No. The same was true of the Elizabethan era. But we are to have the Andertonian era, with a glorious leader and some sort of Kim Il-Sung of North Korea - type equivalent.

We will even have to change our names. Matt Robson is out there right now, changing his name to “Jim Anderton II”.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Order!

No, I will come to Part 2.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): That is not the issue.There is a correct name for the party you are referring to.

It is the Jim Anderton party.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): No, it is not.

I am sorry, but the party has applied to the Electoral Commission to change its name to Jim Anderton’s Progressive party.

💬 Hon Jim Anderton: Not for parliamentary purposes.

It gets even better! The name is not for parliamentary purposes. Calling oneself the Jim Anderton party is something one does in the privacy of one’s own bedroom, but not out in public. At any rate, the leaders of the past—Fidel Castro, Leon Trotsky—never called a party after themselves. The Jim Anderton party told me I was wrong and evil, and I apologise to its glorious leader. I hope the regime lasts for a thousand years.

💬 Hon Jim Anderton: You’re easy to savage.

I am; I know that. I am such a delicate little flower that I take those things very personally. But I looked up the books, and saw that Mao Tse-Tung did not name the Communist Party of China the “Mao Tse-Tung Party”. He was not as arrogant as that. Lee Kuan Yew, who took over Singapore and ran it for three decades, did not name a “Lee Kuan Yew Party”. But Jim Anderton—

💬 Hon Jim Anderton: Where is this in the bill?

It is not in the bill, but I am surprised the bill is not called the “Jim Anderton Bill”. Why is it not the “Jim Anderton Bill”? What a silly name the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3) is. The bill should be the “Jim Anderton Promotion Bill (No 3)”—

💬 Hon Jim Anderton: Parliamentary purposes.

—for parliamentary purposes only, and not to be taken at home. That is what the Jim Anderton party is.

I make it clear that the National Party does support Part 2, which contains the search and seizure provisions. I know I will get another absolute rogering from the Jim Anderton party, and I am sorry about that.

💬 Katherine Rich: Strip-searched!

There will be a strip-search by the Jim Anderton party. But I make it clear we support the bill, because we do know there are certain things in it. As my colleague Lynda Scott pointed out, someone who comes through the border with a suitcase absolutely packed with cold and flu remedies that contain all the precursors one needs to head off to a big cook-up to make P is clearly not carrying it for personal use. That person could not use all those remedies in the thousand years that the Jim Anderton party regime will last for. They could not be used personally. So I am really happy that the National Party is supporting this part. I am sorry I got savaged on the first part. I will wait to take my medicine for the next part when it comes.

New Zealand First is quite clear as to what we are talking about in this part. The bill’s title is the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3), and not the name of a particular party. Of course, after the election we will not be worrying about names. The only name that will be prominent will be New Zealand First’s. I stand to support this part. These changes provide the Customs Service and the police with the necessary powers to enable them to effectively detect the presence of controlled drugs, and to take appropriate action. I must say that the example my colleague from Pakuranga mentioned, about visitors coming to this country, loaded down with a whole lot of drugs for medicinal purposes, could raise an issue, as we witnessed on a recent TV programme that featured a lady who came into the country loaded down with particular drugs that, she alleged, were for personal medicinal use.

This part indicates to us that it is absolutely essential in the fight against drugs. What is the point of wanting to eliminate illicit drug use and the consequences of that use, if the law does not provide the tools for our law enforcement agencies? This part now means that customs and police officers will be able to carry out personal searches on the basis of believing, on reasonable grounds, that a person is in possession of the drugs listed in clause 26. In essence, this part strengthens the ability of the Customs Service and the police in the fight against the illicit use of drugs. It is a known fact that drug use, which this bill is about, is a growing and serious problem. The considerable harm that is caused invariably impacts not only on those who are directly involved but also on their families and the wider community, in which many members are innocent parties in the whole sad episode. The drug P is a drug that we are hearing more and more about—particularly the consequences of its use, which are disastrous. I think that there are enough recent cases to suggest that this law is long overdue. We believe it could be strengthened, and we will certainly address that issue in the debate on the next part. However, I stand to take a short call to say that we support this part.

National wholeheartedly supports this part, because it will assist Customs Service officials to do their job. When I speak with pharmacists, people in the Customs Service, and pharmaceutical representatives, they tell me that the issue is less to do with problems regulating the products once they get into the country and more to do with border security. People bring in large quantities of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine in order to produce P once they are here, and put forward the argument that they are bringing those substances into the country for personal use.

Quite clearly, if someone turns up to an airport with suitcases full of that stuff, they are not using it for personal use. But it has been incredibly difficult for customs officials to prove that, and I think we are seeing here some tightening up of their abilities to deal with problems at our borders. We need to get a handle on the amounts of those substances that are imported. Although we can work with pharmacies to ensure that regulated substances are marketed and sold in a managed way, we can do more by assisting customs officials to be able to deal with the wide range of problems they face when people try to bring those substances into the country.

This part clarifies what the Customs Service is able to do. It is quite detailed in that it lays out what can and cannot be done during a strip search or rub-down search, and what can be required of a person coming into the country with suitcases full of cough medicine. It makes very clear what the Customs Service can ask a passenger coming into this country to do or not to do. I think that will tidy up some of the problems that have been faced in the past and some of the challenges that have been made when people have come through customs with, quite clearly, more goods than they would ever possibly use in a lifetime.

The issue is why there is that level of detail. In the past it has been proven that the level of detail in legislation—when it comes to strip searches, as one example—is very important. When the law is not clear, people will come in, challenge it, and get off, in many cases, on a technicality or because the law does not speak in a very detailed way about a particular incidence. That is why section 13EC, “Definition of strip search”, inserted by clause 27, goes through in quite some detail what officials may require a person who is being searched to do. It is very clear that it is a very full list. Hopefully, we will not see any loopholes, and people being able to get off quite serious charges on technicalities.

Detail is important, but I am not sure that we need the level of detail in some aspects of the bill. I draw the Committee’s attention to clause 29, which specifies that the Commissioner of Police and the chief executive of the New Zealand Customs Service must report to Parliament on the number of rub-down searches and strip searches undertaken by members of the police. I just wonder why we need that level of detail when every member of Parliament knows that, through a parliamentary question or a question in the House, we have access to that information. Why does it need to be specified in law? We live in a country that is increasingly over-regulated, and I would like the Associate Minister of Health just to describe and explain, I suppose, why, in that particular provision, we need to be quite so specific. It may be something to do with the police and their ability to provide information that perhaps needs to be specified in the law. I am not sure.

Some good points have been made in this debate by my colleagues, particularly about resources for the police.

I want to take a very brief call on Part 2 in the Committee stage of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3), just to say that United Future is very supportive of the provisions. We congratulate the Associate Minister of Health, Jim Anderton, on providing border staff with some additional strengths. I think it is great that the bill defines very clearly the raft of searches that can be done. Because of privacy issues it is good to be very clear, so that the power to search is not abused.

The thing in this part that particularly interests me is the ability for controlled deliveries to occur. Really, when we look at all the strategies around drug use and drug abuse in this country, we see that we need to be particularly vigilant to cover those people who make a living from the suffering and addictive behaviours of others. For the Customs Service in concert with the police, when they know that a delivery is coming, to be able to allow it to happen, to monitor it, to pick up on the whole down-line process, and to see, often, particularly in terms of precursor substances coming in, where it is being delivered and who is manufacturing it—to keep track of the whole system—means that the net that officials can throw is much wider, and that is an extremely good development. United Future wants to support the police in this work.

I really want to say just that we are very supportive of these provisions and very glad that the Minister has taken this step.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 377 in the name of the Hon Jim Anderton to Part 2 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to, and Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Part 3 Restricted substances