Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill

Part 2 contains the amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2005. I make an observation of regret that the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of my excellent colleague Dr Paul Hutchison was so narrowly lost. It was an opportunity for this Committee to make some sensible legislation. After all, we have heard from the Associate Minister of Health that there would be a review of the Misuse of Drugs Act. In fact, he has been saying that for some time now. Back in November and December of last year I asked a number of written questions of the Minister about this review and I have had no firm reply. I wonder where this mythical review of the Misuse of Drugs Act is. When I asked the Minister about it he was unable to provide me with any terms of reference or any commencement date—in fact, he was unable to provide me with any information at all. So I question what stage that review is at. As the review is the course of action that this Government—until October of this year—has set itself, then I hope it does commence. How good it would be, in 2 years’ time or so, to have a report back to the House, as proposed by my colleague Dr Paul Hutchison, as to how this amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act is panning out.

A large amount of the debate around this issue from a number of other quarters has been the argument that if we make benzylpiperazine illegal, it will just drive the trade underground. The Minister himself indicated earlier in the debate that it was his belief that the use of benzylpiperazine would in time diminish away. Which of those two views do we believe? Why is this Committee—by a very, very small minority, or one vote—not prepared to take that very sensible concrete step forward and evaluate the effect? We all want to know what the effect will be of this amendment to the Misuse of Drug Act. What will happen to young people and drug use in New Zealand? It is a very important question.

My colleague has proposed a way forward, which, unfortunately, was not successful. The Minister will be a Minister for only another 4 or 5 months, but I would like to think that in that short time he will take seriously the issue of a review of the Misuse of Drugs Act and not merely walk away from this very important issue.

I do not rely only on the advice of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs, which meets in Wellington, because—although the committee is worthy—actually the problem arises all around New Zealand. I pop into drug shops, where I am welcomed with open arms—nearly with open arms—because I am interested in the issue and do not shy away from it. Recently I was in Nelson with my very good colleague Dr Nick Smith, and in two of the three pill shops in Nelson—pills are freely available on the main street of Nelson—we asked the shop assistants how they felt about the oncoming banning of benzylpiperazine and its reclassification under the Misuse of Drugs Act. These shop assistants said they did not care. They said they were going out of business in these pills anyway, and that they did not use the pills, because they were dreadful things. So the prevailing attitude in the sample I did—and I speak of Nelson but there are other centres where I go into pill shops—is that the sooner we get rid of these drugs the better. This is from the people who sell them. Mind you, it is not from the people who are making millions of dollars out of the sale of benzylpiperazine, but these are the people who are taking a wage from it.

We need to remember that in delaying the passage of this bill, in delaying addressing this issue, we have created a market for these recreational drugs. In the 2½ years since I have been a member of Parliament, interested in this issue, and trying to engage with the Minister over this issue, and in the 6 to 7 years that these pills have been on the market, this market has been developing. We have a market in New Zealand that is worth $30 million a year. That is a lot of money; that is big, big business. By delaying the passage of this bill we have—and the Minister, who must take the responsibility for this, has—created a market in New Zealand. There are drugs just offshore and drugs being manufactured in New Zealand that will fill that market. I suggest that this is basic principles of marketing, and for me it is another cause of regret.

I will take just a short call on Part 2, “Amendment to Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2005”, and schedules 1 and 2.

I just make the comment that one of the great concerns that the Health Committee was faced with back in 2003-04 was the extraordinary dexterity with which manufacturers of illicit drugs would move when a drug was put on to the schedule; the manufacturers would immediately think of another isomer, or add on another molecule, to make the drug different and therefore legal. I am very interested to see the work of the committee members to try to cover as many of the derivatives of benzylpiperazine (BZP) as they could think of, and the combinations and permutations of them that could be manufactured. Schedule 1 encapsulates not just benzylpiperazine but “TFMPP … pFPP … MeOPP … mCPP … MBZP”, as well as the “isomers of the substances mentioned”, the “esters and ethers of the substances mentioned in clause 2”, the “salts of [those] substances”, and “Substances containing any proportion of a substance mentioned in clause 2, 3, 4, or 5.” Indeed, the committee has tried very hard to predict where the industry might try to make a preparation that would avoid the legislation. I think that is very important. The rapid rescheduling mechanisms were brought into the House back in 2003 and 2004 to go for the more serious types of drugs—in particular, methamphetamine, Ecstasy, etc. There is no doubt that if one brings in this sort of legislation, it is very important to cover all the possibilities that the sharp minds of illicit manufacturers may extend to. I think that is very important.

I reiterate that it is a pity that the Minister does not support there being a review in 2½ years of the effects of this legislation. He dismisses the fact that the consequences of this legislation could be profound. I would be delighted if, as the Minister suggested, the scenario was that BZP, its derivatives, and party pills in general faded from the market in New Zealand. Sadly, it is highly unlikely that will happen. That is why I thought it was so important that Parliament be required to relook at this measure in a couple of years’ time. It should not rely on the Minister coming up with a review of the Misuse of Drugs Act. He has had an opportunity over the last 8 years to carry out a review, but he has miserably failed to.

Part 2 agreed to.

Schedule 1