Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill

I move, That the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill be now read a second time. At the outset, I thank the Health Committee for its consideration of this legislation. The bill will restrict the availability of the primary precursor substances used to make the class A drug methamphetamine, as well as make some necessary technical amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. The bill does not carry out a comprehensive overhaul of the Misuse of Drugs Act, but it will address some fundamental problems with the legislation in the short term.

Members will be aware that the Law Commission has recently made its final recommendations to the Government, following a first-principles review of New Zealand’s outdated drug legislation. The Government has welcomed this thorough and wide-ranging report, and will be carefully considering all 144 recommendations. In particular, I am sure that most members will agree on the importance of dealing with the increasing number of uncontrolled substances, such as party pills and substances like Kronic. As members will be aware, currently the onus is on the Government to demonstrate the harmfulness of substances before those substances can be controlled. In the meantime, those products can be sold without any restrictions. The Law Commission has proposed reversing the onus so that manufacturers must demonstrate a level of safety before products can legally be sold. The Government broadly accepts this approach, and work is under way to put in place such a regime.

However, we now have a more immediate problem due to the increasing sale of psychoactive substances, like Kronic, without any controls. This bill will make changes to the current Misuse of Drugs Act to enable new restrictions to be put on new party pills and smokeable products. But these moves may not be sufficient, given the way this industry operates, so I have been working on stronger additional amendments to apply until the format proposed by the Law Commission can be put in place. These new amendments will be introduced, by way of Supplementary Order Paper before the Committee of the whole House stage, as the first item of business during the week after the coming adjournment, and will take effect shortly thereafter.

This bill will also make the illegal manufacture of methamphetamine more difficult by closing off the source of domestic methamphetamine precursor substances. This cannot wait. Methamphetamine is the only illegal stimulant drug commonly manufactured in our country, and we have high rates of use, by international standards. It is a particularly problematic illegal drug, which causes significant harm to individuals, families, and communities. Gangs and other organised criminal groups are closely involved with the manufacture and supply of methamphetamine and its precursor chemicals, and the trade of this drug is associated with significant crime and violence. The proposal in this bill is to reclassify ephedrine, and in particular pseudoephedrine, the classification of which will therefore be a significant component of the Government’s intention to tackle the availability of this insidious drug. The bill will reclassify pseudoephedrine and ephedrine as class B2 controlled drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. This reclassification will remove over-the-counter access to pseudoephedrine from pharmacies, and make it a prescription-only medicine. That will make it more difficult for potential manufacturers of methamphetamine to access the key ingredients to make the drug.

Some people have suggested that taking away pseudoephedrine from over-the-counter sale in pharmacies will place an unnecessary burden on legitimate flu sufferers, but those legitimate sufferers will still be able to obtain pseudoephedrine-based medications from their medical practitioners. Members may be interested to note that most people already use alternatives to pseudoephedrine to treat cold and flu symptoms, and that currently fewer than 20 percent of the cold and flu products sold in pharmacies actually contain pseudoephedrine.

Some have suggested that although there is a benefit in restricting the supply of such precursor drugs, the method proposed in the bill is not necessary. Well, I share the views of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs, and of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, in saying that a B2 classification is the most effective way of shutting down the domestic diversion of pseudoephedrine while maintaining its availability as a medicine. Reclassification of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine as class B2 controlled drugs will also give the police and the Customs Service increased powers to control supply, such as the ability to obtain a warrant to intercept communications. The penalty for the unlawful dealing of class B drugs is imprisonment not exceeding 14 years, and for the unlawful possession or use of these drugs it is imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding $500, or both. I intend to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper at the Committee of the whole House stage to change the date these provisions will come into effect to 1 month following the date of enactment, in order to give the industry time to bring these changes into effect, because currently the bill proposes they would take effect on 1 March 2011.

I would be misleading the House if I were to claim that this amendment will, of itself, solve our methamphetamine problem. This is just one of a number of Government actions to address the harms from this drug. I am also fully aware that the major part of the pseudoephedrine currently used to make methamphetamine is smuggled across our borders into New Zealand. The Health Committee noted in its report that the methamphetamine market is worth around $1 billion annually, and that at least 10 percent of that market is manufactured from domestic pseudoephedrine. We cannot therefore ignore the over $100 million worth of the methamphetamine market. We need to complement the valuable work the Customs Service already does, and to strengthen our response to domestic diversion.

The other components of this bill are technical. One of these amendments, the amendment to tighten our existing drug utensils provisions, has raised a certain amount of public interest, and was, I understand, the subject of the majority of the submissions to the Health Committee. Let me make it clear that it is already illegal to import or supply drug-related utensils such as cannabis and methamphetamine pipes, so the bill closes two loopholes to enable police and the Customs Service to enforce, more effectively, the law we already have. At the moment it is an offence to sell drug utensils, but not an offence to display them in a shop or advertise their sale. This places limitations on the police, who can act only if they witness an illegal sale. The second loophole affects the ability of the Customs Service to seize illegal utensils being brought across the border. At the moment it is not illegal to bring in components of drug utensils and then assemble them in New Zealand to be sold illegally. This bill will give the Customs Service the power to seize the recognisable parts of methamphetamine or cannabis pipes, such as a bowl, which requires only a mouthpiece to become a cannabis bong.

This bill will remove thalidomide from class A of the Misuse of Drugs Act, so that it can be more appropriately controlled under the Medicines Act. Thalidomide is not psychoactive, nor is it used recreationally, and its place under the Misuse of Drugs Act is therefore an anomaly we propose to rectify with this amendment.

The bill also proposes to correct a problematic overlap between the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2005 and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 by removing the exclusion that a hazardous substance cannot also be a restricted substance. The restricted substances regime is an important mechanism that we need in order to place robust controls on low-risk psychoactive drugs, such as the so-called party pills and some of the legal highs that would otherwise be uncontrolled, but the current wording of the legislation unintentionally acts as a barrier to the scheduling of any substance as a restricted substance. This amendment bill will remove that barrier. I have already made reference to the problem of synthetic cannabinoids and the Government’s plans to deal with them, culminating in the implementation of the Law Commission’s recommendations. But they themselves do not remove the need for this technical amendment to be made, and it is essential that we address the barrier posed by the wording of the restricted substances definition to ensure that this mechanism is available for controlling new substances in the short term.

I am also proposing a related change in the Supplementary Order Paper to give effect to the Ministry of Health’s view that synthetic cannabinoid products intended for smoking purposes should also fit the definition of herbal smoking products under the Smoke-free Environments Act 1990. An exclusion currently exists in the drug legislation to the effect that a restricted substance cannot also be a herbal smoking product. Therefore, the amendment in the Supplementary Order Paper will propose a further change to the principal Act to allow for certain smokeable products to be regulated as both restricted substances and herbal smoking products under the Smoke-free Environments Act.

These amendments will go a long way to strengthening our drug rules, but they are only the precursor—if I can use that phrase—to far more substantive change following the Law Commission’s report. That change will be enacted next year.

I rise to speak at this point in support of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill. There are aspects of this bill that Labour is very much in favour of, but then there are aspects of this bill with which we have some concerns. I would like to discuss some of those concerns as I continue this call.

Let me say at the outset that we support what the Government is trying to achieve in terms of curtailing the prevalence of P, or pure methamphetamine. We are very supportive of what the Government is trying to achieve. However, I need to say at the outset that this continued tinkering with the Misuse of Drugs Act cannot go on. I support what the Associate Minister of Health Peter Dunne has said about bringing into legislation some of the recommendations that the Law Commission made in its review of the Misuse of Drugs Act. We on this side of the House would like to see that happen as soon as possible, because as we continue chasing our tails, trying to keep up with new substances as they come on to the market, we will find that as we remove one substance from the market, another one will replace it. If we remove that substance, then another and another will constantly be coming on to the market.

Although we support what the Government is trying to achieve, it is absolutely clear that New Zealand needs new legislation to deal with mind-altering substances, and to deal with drugs in the 21st century. The original Misuse of Drugs Act has, over time, become outdated and outmoded, and it simply cannot keep up with the drug environment of the 21st century.

Probably the aspect of this legislation that the public has taken most interest in is the reclassification of ephedrine and pseudoephedrine as class B2 controlled drugs. Labour supports that move, but we point out, as we did in the first reading of this bill, that the vast majority of precursor substances that go into the manufacturing of pure methamphetamine are actually imported illegally across our borders. They are not being purchased at pharmacies. Although this is a good measure that will hopefully curtail the availability of the precursors of pure methamphetamine, it is not a silver bullet that will actually deal with the issue.

We need to see much more being done to curtail the illegal importation of those precursor substances. In fact, one really has to wonder whether the amount of inconvenience to people who simply want to access effective cold and flu medicine that will help them to keep going to work and keep going about their normal daily activities is warranted, given the minimal impact that this measure will have on the availability of methamphetamine on the streets of New Zealand. But the Labour Party is more than happy to support any move to curtail that availability, no matter how small.

Obviously, we also support removing thalidomide’s classification as a class A controlled drug. I think that simply reflects the ad hoc approach that has been taken to the Misuse of Drugs Act over the years. It is a substance that is completely out of place in the Misuse of Drugs Act, and it just makes sense to get that substance out of the Act.

Extending the definition of “amphetamine analogues” is also a useful move, but, again, it is representative of the issue we have of new substances coming on to the market and we in Parliament trying to legislate to keep up with those new substances. We can try to spread the net a bit wider by changing the definition of the analogues of certain substances we deem to be illegal, but we know there will always be new substances.

One of the best examples of that issue, which the public is well aware of, is the issue of synthetic cannabinoids such as Kronic, Dream, and Spice. We support the Minister in terms of the Supplementary Order Paper he will put forward during the Committee stage to bring more regulation to those synthetic cannabis products. But we very much see that only as a bandaid and a short-term fix, and we hope we see the real fix coming through as quickly as possible.

We need a comprehensive review—well, we have had the review. We need comprehensive change to our drug laws in this country. Although it is important that we move quickly to restrict those synthetic cannabis products as much as we can under the current legislation, the real problem is that the current legislation does not allow us to take a sensible, methodical, scientific approach to the availability of new substances. We absolutely support the approach that new substances would need to be proven safe before they come on to the market, rather than the situation we have at the moment, where new substances come straight on to the market. We are essentially experimenting on our children and our young people, and only if we find that they are unsafe do we then try to remove them from the market. That change needs to happen as quickly as possible.

That change is all in the name of reducing harm, and that is what we should be thinking about in terms of drug control and drug law in this country. We should be thinking about how we reduce the harm that drugs have on the people who use them and, of course, on the community around the people who use them. Whether those drugs are legal or illegal, we need to make sure we reduce harm as much as we possibly can.

That brings me to one aspect of this amendment bill that the Labour Party is not able to support. I signal at this point that we will be putting forward an amendment to have clause 4 removed from this piece of legislation. Clause 4 relates to drug utensils. We heard no submitter to the Health Committee say that removing drug utensils would reduce the harm caused by the drugs that are consumed through those utensils. In fact, we heard that potentially we will see an increase in the harm caused to people who will be using ad hoc replacements. Utensils such as pipes are typically used to reduce harm. We heard from the submitters to the select committee that people will use all sorts of devices, most of which are available at the local hardware store, and some of which can be made out of an empty Coke can.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.