Motions — Misuse of Drugs (Changes to Controlled Drugs) Order 2005 and the Misuse of Drugs (Presumption of Supply - Amphetamine) Order 2005—Approval

I move, That pursuant to section 4A of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, this House approve the Misuse of Drugs (Changes to Controlled Drugs) Order 2005, and the Misuse of Drugs (Presumption of Supply - Amphetamine) Order 2005 made under section 4 of that Act. Those orders demonstrate the Labour-Progressive Government’s commitment to a national drug policy that targets drug use in three ways: through supply control, through demand reduction, and by providing treatment services for the victims of drug peddlers.

Last year the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs recommended the reclassification of amphetamine, commonly known as speed, as well as MDA or Ecstasy, and, as Associate Minister of Health in charge of the Government’s drug policies, I accepted those recommendations. Both amphetamine and Ecstasy are currently classified as controlled drugs under Part 2 of the second schedule—that is, under class B2 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. The Misuse of Drugs (Changes to Controlled Drugs) Order 2005 before the House today will reclassify those drugs to Part 1 of the second schedule and as class B1 drugs.

That reclassification will have the effect of enabling police officers, under section 18 of the Act, to detain, search, and seize for those drugs without warrant, and reflects the degree of potential risk of harm that experts associate with those substances. I want to point out to the House that that recommendation to the House is not made in any sense by a political decision. It is a recommendation to me as Associate Minister of Health, through the Cabinet committee and Cabinet process, that that action be taken because of the extreme seriousness and effects of those drugs. Those substances are, as I have said, extremely harmful, and by supporting this move Parliament is saying it agrees that it is not in the public interest for those drugs to be used as so-called recreational drugs. That reclassification is also consistent with New Zealand’s international obligations under the United Nations drug classification framework.

The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs also recommended that the amount for the presumption of supply for amphetamine be set at 5 grams. The presumption of supply concept is a rebuttable presumption that when a person is found with a certain amount of a controlled drug, he or she possesses the drug for the purpose of dealing, by way of sale or supply. In plain English, that means that 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, instead, intended solely for personal use. Currently, the amount for the presumption of supply for amphetamine is 56 grams. While that may not sound much in terms of the weight of groceries we buy, I can assure members that my official advice is that that is an enormous supply of amphetamine—way beyond what anyone could possibly want for his or her personal use.

So the change will have the effect of significantly increasing penalties for offences involving possession of 5 grams of amphetamine, as well as possession of between 5 and 56 grams. As an example, I tell members that a possession for supply offence, rather than a possession for use offence, will carry a maximum sentence of up to 14 years in prison. It is entirely up to the courts how they exercise their discretion under that change, of course, but if anyone thinks that that indicates the seriousness with which the Government takes the use, abuse, and proliferation of those drugs, then they are right. We do take those drugs seriously, and we do believe they are a real threat to the health and well-being of many New Zealand citizens.

That offence can be compared with the offence of possession of a class B controlled drug, which carries a maximum sentence of 3 months’ imprisonment, a fine of $500, or both—in other words, a wrap over the knuckles with a wet bus ticket. Our advice is that that penalty should now change.

In relation to amphetamine, the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs found that that drug, like its counterpart methamphetamine, can quickly cause addiction, has been linked overseas to violence, and can cause psychosis, depression, and erratic behaviour. I think that all members will be aware of some of the outcomes of that kind of situation.

The committee identified an increasing number of risks associated with amphetamine’s current use and distribution. Amphetamine’s addiction potential carries significant health risks. It is also linked to deaths through cerebral vascular haemorrhage, so none of the drugs affected by the motion before us today should be regarded lightly. The Misuse of Drugs (Presumption of Supply - Amphetamine) Order 2005 therefore reflects the fact that that drug’s level of harm to New Zealanders is potentially and, in fact, very serious indeed.

MDMA, or Ecstasy, already has a 5 gram presumption of supply, so we do not need to change that. Ecstasy was classified class B2 in 1987, but the experts recommended its reclassification to class B1. They noted the mounting evidence that Ecstasy-type drugs have a neurotoxic effect, which means they are poisons that act on the nervous system, and that there is a worrying link between New Zealand’s MDMA market and organised crime—some recreational drug! The experts also advised in their 2004 report to me that there was an increasing number of cases of attempted MDMA/Ecstasy manufacture in New Zealand, and they also noted that MDMA/Ecstasy is classified as a schedule 1 or class A drug in other jurisdictions—not, of course, in New Zealand.

These orders are designed to help ensure that enforcement officers have the powers they need, and I hope to see the orders come into force as soon as possible. Just for the information of the House, I say that if this motion is passed today the new authorities and penalties, through the process that needs to be followed, will come into force by 9 September this year. To complement all the other measures that I have overseen, as leader of the Progressive Party and as Associate Minister of Health in this coalition Government, in order to target the abuse of drugs in this country, these measures, in my view and in the view of the Government, are a necessary and desirable step in one element of our fight against drugs.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this important Misuse of Drugs (Changes to Controlled Drugs) Order 2005. I do note that the Hon Jim Anderton expressed the commitment of the Progressive-Labour Government to this legislation. I think it fair to say that all parties that have been involved in the Health Committee are hugely worried by the spread of drugs such as amphetamine and methyl amphetamine in New Zealand.

I am, however, concerned that though we now have a rapid classification mechanism to deal with those drugs as they are changed from time to time, it has taken a huge amount of time over the last 5 years to get to where we are. After all, it was in 1999 that under the Rt Hon Wyatt Creech this suggested change to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 was recommended, and it has been almost at snail’s pace, I believe, that the Labour and so-called Progressive coalition Government has finally got to the stage where, today, the changes to be made involve amphetamine and methyl amphetamine going from a B2 to a B1 classification, and the presumption of supply of amphetamine is going from 56 grams to 5 grams—a much more reasonable amount.

I want to re-emphasise once again the importance of the rapid classification measures through the affirmative resolution procedures that were decided on in the amendment in 2003. I do not think that the importance of that procedure should ever be underestimated. It was designed to be used only in the rarest of circumstances, and certainly the Regulations Review Committee that dealt with this made very, very strong recommendations as to the rare use of these procedures. The reason they have come about is the very fact that criminal gangs, and others, have rapidly increased the use of these dangerous drugs in New Zealand. But, more worrying, the methods they have used to import them into New Zealand and distribute them have become more and more sophisticated and more and more difficult for the police to deal with—hence the extraordinary measures that are proposed by this motion.

In essence, one of the effects of classification from B2 to B1 is to extend the search and seizure powers of the police. I note that from the justice perspective the most significant feature of this particular decision is that it provides the police with the power to detain, search, and seize without a warrant in circumstances where they have reasonable grounds to believe that offences associated with amphetamine or methamphetamine are occurring. Examples of what has constituted reasonable grounds include, in some cases, actual sightings of a controlled drug—or at least bags of white powder—information, or the presence of a “smell”, particularly of cannabis.

Now all of those things do have certain dangers to innocent parties associated with them. So these powers should be exercised only with great caution, where there is, indeed, a very good sense by law enforcement officers that they should be used. I note that the criminal justice group says that the actual search and seizure of any controlled drug must also be carried out reasonably for the purposes of section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, which provides that everyone has a right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure, whether of the person, property, or correspondence, or otherwise.

There is a substantial body of case law on section 21 that indicates the courts will rule that any evidence obtained in the course of the search that is carried out unreasonably, even if lawful, is inadmissible in any subsequent proceedings, in accordance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. However, there is undoubtedly a tension of balance here as to how it will be used in the future, given particularly the extreme lengths that criminal gangs are using to import and distribute both methyl amphetamine, amphetamine, and their precursors around the country.

It is also really important to point out just how serious the penalties are when drugs are changed from one schedule to the other. The first schedule, which includes drugs such as heroin, has penalties that include life imprisonment. They are pretty damned serious penalties that one would hope, indeed do make a difference to the gangs. Unfortunately, one of the practical problems is that many of those involved in that traffic are so addicted, or otherwise totally involved in what they are doing, that they seem almost impervious to any penalty that is laid down, even life imprisonment. I think we have seen this all around the world, particularly in cases in Indonesia and Thailand. But today we are changing amphetamine and methamphetamine from B2 to B1 to become class B controlled drugs in the second schedule, with a penalty of up to 14 years’ imprisonment for importation, manufacture, or supply; up to 10 years’ imprisonment for conspiracy to commit an offence; and up to 3 months’ imprisonment, or a $500 fine, or both, for possession.

So the point that I have been trying to make is that we know there has been an almost terrifying escalation of drug use in New Zealand, particularly over the last 6 years. We have heard that the first clan-labs were busted by the police in about 1998. There were about three that year, and it has evolved rapidly to the order of 200 or 300 clan-labs per year being busted over the last few years. There is no doubt that the escalation of those drugs in New Zealand has been very dramatic and very worrying, and that is the reason why the affirmative resolution procedure has been brought in. Today we have made realistic changes in terms of methamphetamine and methyl amphetamine, changing them from B2 to B1, and taking the presumption of supply from 56 grams down to 5 grams. However, it is important to remember that here we are also allowing the police to have pretty well uncontrolled search and seizure actions available to them, and that balance must be very much kept in mind in terms of individuals’ rights and must not be overused by the police.

The National Party supports this resolution and hopes, indeed, that it will help in the responsible control of this sort of illicit drug expansion in New Zealand.

This may seem a very technical measure, but it is very significant. I thank the members of the Health Committee who worked on this in an extraordinarily rapid manner in order to get this measure through in this session of Parliament. It does show the commitment of this Parliament to look at all three aspects of national drug policy and control, which are about the control of drugs, the demand reduction, and also treatment services for those addicted to drugs. This little measure today is about controlling the supply side of drugs. It certainly targets the dealers and not the users, and that is a very important message.

One other really important message in this measure today is that a lot of our young people—and this extends to quite young adults—are using drugs quite prevalently out there, as party drugs, and they think that they are safe. They think they are recreational drugs that will keep them going through the night. They have no idea of the emerging evidence of the harm these drugs can cause. We on the Health Committee also learnt about the harm related to the use of alcohol at the same time.

The member who spoke before me said that we had been very slow with the expeditious scheduling notice of motion mechanism that is now in the misuse of drugs orders. The member is quite wrong. This was referred to the Health Committee on 23 June. We all agreed that this matter was very important, and that we should debate it and pass it in this term of Government. We were a little bit concerned about some aspects of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs. It had not been publishing its minutes, its reports, and its papers, and that was something we had agreed to when we debated the original Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3)—that is, information from the Expert Advisory Committee must be made publicly available on the web and on the Internet as an educative tool for New Zealand to understand why that committee was making those orders.

This notice of motion process is really interesting. The expert advisory committee notifies the Minister of Health, the Minister of Health then takes a paper to Cabinet, and the order is referred to the Health Committee. The Health Committee has 28 days to report back to the House. We can call for evidence in that time. Today we are having this debate on two substances. We did not really call for public input into this, and we on the select committee acknowledge that. That was a step that we overlooked, because we wanted this measure to be expeditiously scheduled and passed now.

Two substances are considered in this measure. One is amphetamine, commonly known as speed, and we are just changing the presumption of supply; and the other is Ecstasy, or MDMA. We are changing the classification from B2 to B1. We looked at amphetamine and we heard from the expert advisory committee on the evidence. Decisions are evidence based. It is not because we are worried about the increased use out in the community, but we asked for evidence. There are some treatment modalities that amphetamines are useful for, such as narcolepsy and ADHD—for children on Ritalin. It is a type of amphetamine substance. Amphetamine does have some euphoric effects. It is a controlled drug. Therefore, it needs to be prescribed by a medical specialist. Out on the street it has lots of names, like speed, crank, go fast, whiz, and uppers. It is an upper. But there is confusion out there in the public eye about methamphetamine and amphetamines. They are all lumped together in their mind. They are just known as amphetamines and they are used very, very regularly as recreational drugs.

The expert advisory committee was really concerned about the increased use and abuse of amphetamines and strongly suggested that they were not safe recreational drugs. Obviously increased availability on the street and importation levels have been quite astronomical. There has been an increase in arrests for amphetamines of 650 percent since 2002, which is really, really high. There is a high risk of harm, especially for those who are vulnerable and those with depression and mental health problems. We have also noted an associated increase in road safety harm, especially the combined use of amphetamines and alcohol. So we decided, and all supported, that the presumption of supply had to go from 56 grams to 5 grams. These are actually used recreationally in little lots of 100 capsules or tabs. We decided that was a most unsafe practice, which was the evidence that we received. But we did need more evidence on police interception, especially their powers without a warrant, and we are becoming increasingly concerned about that.

On the other hand, MDMA, or Ecstasy—it has lots of street names such as E, Adam, “Ecy”, Hug Drug—has no known therapeutic value at all, it is simply a recreational-use drug on the market. Overseas it has a much higher classification than we use in New Zealand. We were very concerned about Ecstasy statistics for young users coming into accident and emergency departments on Friday and Saturday nights, after having been out partying. We have known of three deaths in New Zealand that were Ecstasy related. They were predominantly, though, from hypothermia and over-hydration. There is a common myth that one has to drink lots of water while on Ecstasy, and those three deaths were related to over-hydration and hypothermia.

We need to get these drugs in perspective. It is known that Ecstasy alone is actually less harmful than alcohol. I think that all of us are worrying and panicking about street use of recreational drugs and we forget that the most harmful effects are from alcohol, which has caused a lot more actual physical harm than these street drugs. However, we are concerned about increased use and importation, and this reclassification today allows for increased search and seizure powers without a warrant, which is something that I am sure my colleague Nandor Tanczos will be concerned about, as we all were, too, and we need to watch this trend on the Health Committee.

The penalties are substantially increased by this reclassification. At the moment the penalty is 3 months’ imprisonment or a $500 fine. As a result of this reclassification the penalty can now be up to 14 years’ imprisonment, and that is something we all need to be concerned about. I am pleased to support this motion today and I thank the members of the Health Committee for taking this so seriously.

On behalf of New Zealand First, I rise to support the motion that this House approve the Misuse of Drugs (Changes to Controlled Drugs) Order 2005 and the Misuse of Drugs (Presumption of Supply—Amphetamine) Order 2005, made under section 4 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. In New Zealand First we recognise the extraordinary harm caused to New Zealanders by drugs and, more recently, amphetamines. It is an extremely serious problem out on the streets. Despite the number of prosecutions and the very best efforts of the police, this drug industry appears to be thriving, with no signs of any abatement. We know that the escalation of usage is dramatic. We urgently need a strategy to try to turn round the harm caused by the usage of these drugs in our country. They are dangerous and they are exceedingly harmful.

The onus in this legislation is on the person found with the drug to prove that he or she was not supplying the drug and that it was intended for personal use. How that can be proved appears to be a challenge to me. Hopefully it is very clear in other legislation. We do need to get very tough on the peddlers of these drugs—in fact, all drugs—and reducing the amount at which amphetamine is presumed to be for supply, from 56 grams to 5 grams, is just one of those measures. From the evidence that we received at the Health Committee, this is a much-needed change.

While the committee discussed the concerns of the Regulations Review Committee about the need for the affirmative action procedure to be used very carefully, because we all know that the basis of any democracy is for submitters to have their views heard by a select committee, New Zealand First believes that for situations like drugs, where rapid action is required in the interests of the public, this course of action is definitely appropriate.

The officials said to the select committee that they needed the ability to amend the supply levels rapidly if there was clear evidence that the supply level was set too low. The lagging of the required legislation in this drugs field has meant that our law enforcement agencies—the Customs Service and the police—have often been totally hamstrung under the present law. We all know that importation levels have increased dramatically. Parliament has a duty to support both the police and the Customs Service in a timely manner in their fight against the illicit use of drugs and the importation of those drugs into this country. Enforcement officers need these powers. New Zealand First supports this motion. We believe that these changes are necessary and desirable in our fight against the use of illicit drugs.

The ACT party joins other parties in the House in supporting this motion. We commend the Health Committee, which presented its report on 6 July. ACT’s Heather Roy is a very active member of that committee and she has advised our caucus that this measure is very worthy of support. We note, of course, that it is aimed at the pushers by tacking the change to the order on to presumption of supply with amphetamines.

We all know the damage that substance abuse associated with the misuse of amphetamines and methamphetamines is causing in our society. That damage is very severe, although I note, and the point has already been made, that alcohol, taken as a substance, is possibly even more dangerous. But that is not to condone the use of amphetamines or any substance abuse.

The issue in our society is what is causing people—particularly young people, but not exclusively young people—to engage in substance abuse. We have things like glue in our hardware stores. People can buy a 10-litre tin of glue and do immense damage to themselves through substance abuse. For that matter, they could buy gallons of petrol at the petrol station. As a substance itself, petrol would do them harm if it was abused. So the real issue is what is causing people to abuse these substances, thereby doing themselves harm and, too often, others harm in the process.

So without any hesitation the ACT party supports this motion, which is aimed at those who are pushing the misuse of these substances.

Let us move beyond the “tough on drugs” rhetoric and get real about what the House is actually considering today. The Minister stated in his press release this morning that Parliament is saying that it is not in the public interest for these drugs to be used as so-called recreational drugs. Well, actually, that is a load of cobblers. How Parliament says that these drugs should not be used as recreational drugs is by making them illegal, which it did many, many years ago. The changes we are considering in this motion have no logical connection with that statement whatsoever.

This motion does two things: it changes the presumption of supply level, and, more significantly, it introduces search without warrant powers for speed and Ecstasy. The only message sent by introducing search without warrant powers for the police is that this Parliament has no regard for the basic human rights guaranteed in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and affirmed in our own New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which includes the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure—and I thank Mr Hutchison for the comments that he made in that regard.

I have in front of me the briefing paper given to the select committee as evidence for why that change was needed, and the reason given was the “involvement of international drug-running syndicates and the increasing seizures”. It is pretty logical that if we are seeing an increase in seizures, then the police already have adequate powers to police the law. It does not make sense to use that to argue that police powers are not adequate. I think the advisers were a bit thrown by the select committee even questioning the need for increased draconian powers for the police.

Let us be clear what this is all about. The advisers told us that the measure is intended to target dealers, and Mr Ken Shirley echoed that delusion. It is not about that, at all. Let us look back on history. When the Government introduced search without warrant powers for cannabis, it said the same thing—that it was to target dealers, not people on the street. But history shows us that those powers are used primarily to target users of drugs rather than dealers of drugs. In fact, a number of cases before the courts have been acquitted, because of police abuse of those powers. It is obvious: if there is a move to bust a major international drug-running syndicate, then the amount of police intelligence and work required to make that drug bust would probably require all that information being used by the police to obtain a search warrant. Getting the warrant would be no problem in such cases. The only time the police do a search without warrant is on an opportunistic fishing expedition on the streets. On those occasions they primarily target users, not dealers. So the argument that somehow these search without warrant powers will be used to target dealers, is simply a fantasy. It is not borne out by logic or the evidence of history.

I note that search without warrant powers were never vetted under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, because we did not have that legislation in 1975 when the Misuse of Drugs Act was passed. The committee was advised by Crown Law that it had not considered the issue in terms of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, because the primary legislation was already in place. It is time that the “search without warrant” powers under the Misuse of Drugs Act were put through a proper test under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act to see whether they meet with the fundamental human rights that we take for granted in this country.

The motion also lowers the presumption of supply levels, and, of course, I agree that 56 grams is probably a large amount, not a realistic amount. But let us be clear: if a person has 6 grams or even 2 or 3 grams, he or she can still be prosecuted for possession for sale and can be convicted if the case can be proved. The only difference made by the proposed change to the legislation is that the presumption of supply level simply means that the basic principle of justice—that is, one is innocent until proven guilty—is overturned. That is what is meant by presumption of supply. Therefore, if a person is caught with more, then he or she has to prove that it is not for supply. How does one do that? Honestly, God only knows. I say that advisedly, because the advisers did not know the answer; neither did the Minister when I raised the matter with him. So how on earth do people prove that drugs in their possession are not for sale, when police have no need to provide any corroborating evidence, whatsoever? I have no idea how a person could defend that in a court of law.

So the matter is a highly significant one, because possession for supply carries a maximum penalty of 14 years. It is to our shame that people convicted of crimes of violence, rape, and the importation of child pornography, regularly receive sentences lower than those handed down to people convicted of supplying drugs to people who want to buy them. We see such cases regularly reported in our newspapers, and we really have to question our priorities in terms of the criminal justice system.

The affirmative resolution procedure was designed for expeditious scheduling of drugs and for evidence-based decision-making. It is totally unacceptable that the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs could recommend to the Health Committee a change to introduce search without warrant powers for the police, yet not provide any evidence as to the need for that change in the law. When advisory committee officials were asked about that, they apologised and said that next time they would do a little better. I say that is unacceptable. The whole point of the procedure is to have evidence-based decision-making.

It seems contrary to the intention of the Misuse of Drugs Act to put forward bold and bald assertions without proving the evidence as to why they are needed. The affirmative resolution procedure was also designed to allow some public input, either during the consideration by the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs or during the select committee procedure. I note that the Minister introduced this notice just before a 4-week adjournment, and I wonder whether it was to ensure that the public had no opportunity to have its say before the select committee, because when advisory committee officials were asked about that, they confirmed they had made no attempt to get information from anyone outside their own committee, which has a pretty restricted area of expertise. There are a whole lot of areas of expertise that are not represented on the committee; neither did the select committee have the opportunity to call for input from the public.

It is scandalous that this Parliament passes motions like this one, whereby the penalties for possession of 6 grams of speed or Ecstasy are significantly increased, where a draconian new search power for the police—in the context of those powers already being abused—is introduced, and where the public has had no input, whatsoever.

I rise on behalf of United Future in support of the Misuse of Drugs (Changes to Controlled Drugs) Order 2005, and the Misuse of Drugs (Presumption of Supply - Amphetamine) Order 2005.

I was driving home the other night from a late meeting, as most of us are doing now in the time leading up to the election—and my human rights were violated. I turned the corner and there they were, with lights flashing, ready to pull me over and breath test me! I celebrate the fact that the police were prepared to have a team out there to breath test me, and everybody else on the road that night, because what that offered me was protection. It meant they would be checking that the other people using the road that night were safe to be driving, and that my safety was important. I did not for 1 minute object to being pulled over and delayed, for the short time it took to be breathalysed. In that case the innocent until proven guilty rule was not being applied, but I am grateful for the efforts of the police in that regard.

United Future is very keen to help move this issue along. We understand and appreciate that on these matters Parliament needs to be able to reflect on the evidence-based but urgent needs that cross our path in respect of the supply of illicit drugs in this country. Certainly, the therapeutic benefits of the drugs we are talking about are quite minimal. They do have some uses and we accept that, but generally they are mostly used in this country for illicit purposes.

The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs is able to approach the Minister and suggest that new substances be added to schedules, or that the classification of a substance be upgraded by Order in Council. United Future, in our recent amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act, made sure that the movement by Order in Council can only be used to strengthen the provisions around the substance—that is, if there were ever a decision to liberalise the classification of a drug, that could not be taken by Order in Council but would require full scrutiny by Parliament, and full input by the public through the submission process. We are very pleased to have put that amendment forward. We are very happy to be able to respond quickly to crises, but we think the opposite effect of an Order in Council—whereby it could be used in an unhelpful way to downgrade the classification of a substance without full parliamentary scrutiny—is an unwise and reckless provision, and we are glad to have been part of the change.

I want to counter something that was said previously. One of the members talked about the fact that Ecstasy, we were told, was less of a risk than alcohol. I think we need to read very carefully what was said, because it is not actually quite true. What was said was that the public health risk of Ecstasy was notably lower than that of alcohol—and that is quite a different matter. We accept that we still have a way to go in terms of the binge-drinking culture of New Zealanders, in order to address our approach to the substance of alcohol. Binge drinking is wrong, unhealthy, and dangerous.

I was interested in talking recently to a publican who objected to the amount of host responsibility the law puts on him, and who felt there should be a lot more responsibility put on individuals to manage the amount they drank. My response to him was: “You sell poison; you take responsibility.” I really do think we need to look very carefully at our attitudes towards alcohol. I accept the Green member’s position on that—that we do sometimes give alcohol a lighter treatment—and I agree that that is wrong. United Future would support efforts that are sensible in that regard. There are also some rather silly suggestions about how that might be achieved, and we need to be sensible about it.

Why should we reclassify amphetamine? Well, the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs told us that they found there has been increasingly prevalent amphetamine use and importation into New Zealand, clear evidence of the high risk of harm associated with amphetamine use, limited therapeutic applications for the drug, evidence of drug substitution between amphetamine and other amphetamine-type stimulants, and a need for decisive police powers to tackle street-level amphetamine offending.

It is interesting that they also gathered evidence to say that there are clear links now between New Zealand’s illicit amphetamine market and organised crime. As I mentioned earlier, there is also a growing concern about the link between substance abuse and road safety, beyond just our current monitoring of alcohol consumption. I believe that in New Zealand, when people are found driving recklessly and breaking the road rules in some way, we need to collect a lot more data to determine whether other substances are present in their systems if alcohol is not. We need to understand a lot more accurately the impact of what is going on with road safety issues, and the link between those and drug abuse.

United Future does not really need to say more at this stage; we are supportive of this legislation. However, I would like to signal one thing in relation to the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs, on which we rely so heavily for information on these matters. I am very supportive of a lot more transparency in that process. I think it is good that we expect to see the reasons behind the advice it is giving. We need to see where it gets its information from and who it consulted with.

United Future would be supportive of seeing an increased level of transparency in some of the advisory committee’s recent advice on things like party pills, which we have some personal disquiet about. I know that New Zealand First also shares our disquiet. It may be that all we are dealing with is just the cocktail effect of party pills with alcohol, but some of us just want to be really, really sure that these issues the committee gives us clear rulings and advice on are revisited from time to time, and that in an ongoing way it is considering evidence from overseas, as other jurisdictions deal with this very, very serious problem.

Motion agreed to.