Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3)

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the preliminary clauses of this very important Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3). The National Party is indeed supporting these very important parts of the bill because, as introduced, they amend two main areas of the Misuse of Drugs Act and the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 1978. These deal with presumption of supply matters to be amended by Order in Council, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure; they also amend the presumption of supply quantity for methamphetamine, and add a Ministry of Justice official as a member of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs. The National Party certainly believes that all those things are very important in terms of ensuring that the affirmative resolution procedure can be used in the most optimal way possible, given that it is a very special procedure.

I did not get an opportunity when we were discussing Part 1 to talk about the Needle and Syringe Exchange Programme. One of the aspects of Part 1 was, indeed, the reversal of proof that would be allowed for individuals who were on the programme so that they would not be subject to having to provide proof in the first instance that the needles were not obtained legally. Instead, the proof is on the part of the police to do this. I think that is a very useful measure because undoubtedly the Needle and Syringe Exchange Programme in New Zealand has essentially been a very useful process.

I was approached by the Drug Foundation to support an amendment that might completely remove any form of punishment for needle exchange users, whether they had obtained those needles through the programme or through illicit means. I understand that the international evidence has been that where there has been no form of recrimination for those needle users, it has meant that they have been able to go about the needle exchange process much more freely than is the case at present. Because, as I understand that, even with the reversal of proof, it still will mean their going to court and going through the process that they find sometimes pretty arduous and pretty difficult, when they are actually part of the needle exchange process, and are taking at least the responsible action to make sure that the needles that they use are clean and are unlikely to be associated with HIV, hepatitis, and all the infectious diseases that we are very concerned about for those substantial number of people who do, indeed, use needles in this country.

I note that the final report of the Needle and Syringe Exchange Programme recommended that the New Zealand Government and the community recognise the vital role of the exchange programme in preventing HIV infections, and I absolutely concur with that. It also said that the New Zealand Parliament should approve the proposed amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act that would remove the offensive possession of needles and syringes legally obtained through the exchange programme, and indeed, National supports that.

It went on to say in its 16th recommendation that the basic training of the New Zealand Police should include a short session on New Zealand’s harm minimisation and the Needle and Syringe Exchange Programme, and that that exchange programme should liaise with the police to achieve this goal. I think that is very important, and the National Party supports it.

I just want to respond to some of the things that the Minister in the chair, Jim Anderton, said previously. He talked about these drugs having been around for 10 years. Well, no; the drug problem has been around for a long time, but he was wrong about the time that Benzylpiperazine and P have been around. What happens is every year people think of something new. Benzylpiperazine has not been around for 10 years.

He also said that National had done nothing. Well, how hypocritical is that? This whole piece of legislation that this Minister is using was devised by Wyatt Creech; the Minister seems to forget that. The expeditious scheduling that has set up the affirmative resolution process was actually developed by the National Government because we had huge concerns about Ecstasy and Fantasy. Of course, the use of P methamphetamine is pretty new. It has appeared in the last 5 or 6 years, and it has been expeditiously scheduled, as well. So the Minister is incorrect in his assertions that National had done nothing. We had done a huge amount, and he has used that process, as we did, to try to ensure safety for our young people.

But the other thing that was hypocritical about this Minister saying he does not understand National’s position is he has actually said he will look at a stand-alone Act for Part 3 of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3), that he will look at a separate Act for restricted substances. That is exactly what National was asking for—that there should be a separate Act of Parliament. There was a great deal of debate at the Health Committee about his Supplementary Order Paper 298. That debate was around how on earth we would actually fit it into this bill, whether it would achieve the aim that it was set up to do, and whether expeditious scheduling should be allowed to be used in this particular way. There was debate week after week. In fact, the chair of the Health Committee, Steve Chadwick was nearly tearing her hair out at some points. I remember her saying she had just had enough of our going round and round in circles on the issues. The Minister stood up and said: “There’s no problem.”, and I am sure he has good intentions, but that is not what National members have been debating; we have been debating the process. The Minister agrees that there is a problem. He knows that, and that is why he gave us an undertaking to look at setting up a stand-alone Act for this particular part of the legislation.

National supports the original intention of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3). That intention was to make the precursor substances for making P methamphetamine—that is, ephedrine and pseudoephedrine—illegal. We support that. We support the change of onus of proof for needles, to try to improve the Needle and Syringe Exchange Programme. We support having regulations and some controls over party drugs; we have no problem with that, at all. It is just the process that was used that we have a problem with. The Minister himself agreed with us. He knows there were problems. He knows that this part was added very rapidly, and the select committee had a lot of trouble trying to decide what to do with his Supplementary Order Paper. The debate went round and round the table week after week. I am sure that United Future members can confirm that, because they had real concerns about it, as well; it was not just ACT and the National Party. We do need to ensure that legislation is properly drafted.

Even today, through the Committee process, National members have been making amendments to this bill. Dealing with controlled drugs is something that needs to go through the parliamentary process quickly. There are many ways for it to come through this House, and, of course, the use of urgency is one of those ways. We have always supported the select committee process because it allows the public to have a say—the people at the coalface dealing with these issues; the police, customs officers, and parents—on these issues so that we can try to get it right, and try to make sure that the legislation and the regulations that follow actually deliver what we want. I have seen, time and time again in this Parliament—I think the Charities Bill would probably be the best example in recent times—officials not hitting the target when they are deciding on regulations and developing law. It is not that everyone does not have good intentions; it is that people are actually not in touch with those on the ground and the real issues, and they miss the target.

National members certainly support this bill.

I shall talk to both clauses 1 and 2, and I shall deal with clause 2 first. Notwithstanding the technicalities that may prevent my suggestion, I believe that this legislation should come into force on the day the royal assent is given, rather than on the day after that.

But having said that, I say New Zealand First considers this to be a very important bill. It is important that the title is clearly understood by everyone. Notwithstanding that some legislation in the past has included clauses that lacked definition, and of course I refer to clauses regarding the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, New Zealand First is glad to see that those principles are not included in this bill. It just goes to show that we really do not need those principles to be alluded to. It is more difficult to realise from the title that this important legislation relates to the regulation of benzylpiperazine and other party drugs. The manufacturers of those pills need to be able to identify easily and to understand these regulations. We understand that separate legislation for restricted substances is at least 18 months away. We will follow that development with some interest.

It is pleasing to note that groups like the Social Tonics Association of New Zealand are already taking measures to put into place many of the community-focused measures that are covered in this bill. This legislation will clarify that benzylpiperazine is not a dietary supplement or a food. Since it is included as a restricted substance, it is therefore, by definition, not a food or dietary supplement. That group is therefore taking voluntary steps, in anticipation of further regulation under the bill once it is passed—and I am talking about the Social Tonics Association of New Zealand. The association is changing its labels, so that products are no longer marketed as dietary supplements. It is also recommending three issues: firstly, limiting the amount of benzylpiperazine contained in each pill to 200 milligrams, with a limit of 600 milligrams per packet, secondly, including more explicit warnings on labels that benzylpiperazine is contained in products and they are not to be sold to under 18-year-olds, and, thirdly, developing terms of trade to prevent retailers from selling to persons under 18. It is essential that benzylpiperazine products are manufactured and sold safely. The association remains committed to regulations that will exclude irresponsible and unsafe operators from the industry.

This bill is an example of an evidence-based approach to policy development and of a strong commitment to harm minimisation. New Zealand First, again, repeats its support for the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3).

I was not intending to speak on this part, but I did rise to speak because Dr Paul Hutchison raised a very important issue around needle exchange. I did actually move an amendment to remove the possession of needles as an offence. Members may have missed it, because it is in a miscellaneous provisions clause, and, again, that comes back to the problem of the bill and the Act as a whole. They are quite difficult things to find one’s way around in.

There is a concern that even by reversing the onus of proof—as the bill does—people are hindered from using clean needles. The Health Committee heard very strong evidence that police do use the existing law. Generally, police do not charge people for possession of needles, but they do use it to bully people and extract information. That does hinder intravenous drug users from using clean needles, and that is the problem. Perhaps it is not such a big problem with current intravenous drug users, because the current intravenous drug using community is well aware of the needle exchange programme, how it works, and its safeguards. But what is of increasing concern is new intravenous drug users. There is growing anecdotal evidence that some P users are starting to move to intravenous use. The evidence is not very clear, it is not very substantial, but certainly the anecdotal evidence that is coming off the streets is that as methamphetamine gets more scarce and more expensive, some people are starting to move to intravenous drug use.

Obviously, that is extremely worrying in a number of ways, and it should concern us all. But I certainly think we would all share the view that if people are starting to move towards intravenous drug use, there should be no hindrance to their getting clean needles. Of course, there is a simple cost equation as well. There are enormous cost savings to be made in health care. At present there is a 6 percent sharing rate of needles, and if that was reduced, or eliminated, that would produce huge savings for New Zealand health care. An independent valuation found that every dollar spent on New Zealand’s needle exchange programme currently saved an estimated $3.35 in health-care costs. So there is an enormous economic, as well as social, moral, and ethical, argument for doing that.

The committee did address this issue, but it was persuaded by the police not to remove it as an offence entirely. The arguments of the police were actually quite spurious. They said that they needed it for drug control and to stop an illegal market in needles. Let us be clear: there is no black market for needles and syringes in New Zealand—that is, all needles and syringes used for drug injection are obtained from an authorised supplier. Even if we did remove possession of needles as an offence, it would not take away the offence of unauthorised selling. One still has to be an authorised seller, so people could still be prosecuted if they were selling needles and they were not authorised to do so. So the law stays in place to allow us to police that.

In any case, let us be real about it: there are no incentives for an illegal market in needles. The concern was raised that there might be a drug dealer who was selling needles as well. First, there is no incentive for people to buy needles from a dealer, because they can get them free from the needle exchange simply by swapping their old ones. So there is no financial incentive; there is a disincentive to get needles from a dealer. Secondly, perhaps dealers could give them away, but why would they do that? Why would they incur an extra cost on themselves when there is no benefit in doing that? People would just go to the needle exchange to get one. In any case, if dealers were giving away clean needles, surely that would be a good thing. I would have thought so. It would be better than allowing their customers to share needles and, therefore, put themselves at risk of contracting HIV, hepatitis, or any of the other blood-borne diseases. The third possibility was that drug dealers would give away dirty needles. That just does not make sense. They would lose their customer base pretty quickly if they did that. Customers would know pretty quickly that that was going on and they would not use them. So it just does not make sense.

The argument is just illogical, and it is sad that the Health Committee was persuaded by it, because I do not think it holds any water. That is pretty clear from international evaluations, and we can look at the report of the Australian National Drug Law Enforcement Research Fund titled: The role of police in preventing and minimising illicit drug use and its harm, which shows clearly the benefits of needle exchanges and removing the possession of needles as an offence. As I said, there are enormous savings in health costs, mortality rates, morbidity rates, and the like.

I shall take a brief call on the first two clauses of this Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3).

First, I shall make a quick reference to the needle exchange business. The police shared their concern that if we removed the full ability for needles to be used evidentially, that could encourage needle use over other methods of consumption—that needle use would then become a preferred method, because of the legal sanction around it. That was a real concern that some of us shared.

I want to talk about the title of the bill. What comes to mind is what has been mentioned many times in the Chamber this morning, and that is that many of us—and we included it in the commentary on this bill—want to see ongoing work done to set up a restricted substances Act for legal psychoactive substances. I want to take a minute to challenge every party.

I shall start with National and Labour, the two parties that are going into this election campaign with the belief that they can viably be the Government after the election. My challenge to them is whether they are prepared to promise us today, in the Chamber, that they will continue the work, which I understand could take up to 2 years. Will those parties give us a guarantee that, if they become the Government, they will treat that work as a priority, so that a restricted substances Act is established? It requires the will of the Government, and I believe that those parties should make that commitment today.

But, beyond that, I ask this question of the other parties, whose goal is to be a support party after the election, and who seek to wield some power in terms of the conditions they put down to the party they are supporting: will they give the same undertaking that, after the election, they will set as a priority, with whichever party they are working with—if they get that opportunity—the advancing of this much-needed work, so that a restricted substances Act is put in place? I ask that question of New Zealand First, the Greens, and ACT. Will they make a commitment and guarantee us today that they would see that as a priority, and that it would be part of any agreement they made if they got the chance to make an agreement? I think every party needs to put itself on the line in that regard.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 377 in the name of the Hon Jim Anderton to clause 1 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to, and clause 1 as amended agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading