Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill

Madam Chair, thank you. So clause 3 of the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill concerns the principal Act, stating that “This Act means Psychoactive Substances Act 2013”. I’m pleased to stand and take a call on this clause in particular, because I want to point out how what is being proposed here is incredibly sloppy lawmaking. The reason for that is if you look at the way that drug legislation in New Zealand is created and drafted, the centrepiece is the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. That piece of legislation speaks to any use of any of those classified drugs being a misuse. That is where we prohibit the use—and, indeed, the misuse, as we so characterise it—of drugs.

If the intention here is to increase penalties for supply and distribution and, indeed, possession with intent to supply or distribute drugs, and the intention is that those drugs are prohibited—particularly when the member who is sitting in the chair and in charge of this bill is aware that the substances that have been responsible for 45 deaths in the past year and 25 deaths the year prior—the best approach would be to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 instead of going about taking this catch-all approach, because it is indeed shoddy lawmaking.

When I previously put this question to the member on clause 1, he spoke to the fact that what we’re going to see if we don’t provide this catch-all is that those who operate in the criminal underground are going to move to create more and more chemicals such that it’s important that we have a catch-all within the psychoactive substances for those chemicals that we have not yet regulated for. But I would implore members opposite, and indeed the member in the chair, to look at the chronology of events that led us to the situation that we are in now. Prior to the passage—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, no, not the chronology; you must talk to the Act.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: I’m speaking to the psychoactive substances legislation and the purpose inherent in the Psychoactive Substances Act and speaking to why it is a shoddy piece of legislation to amend the Psychoactive Substances Act and not the Misuse of Drugs 1975.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You need to follow that through—absolutely spot on.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Absolutely, Madam Chair, and please do let me know if I’m not.

So the reason that I am speaking to this is because the Misuse of Drugs 1975 is a scheduled listing of prohibited drugs, and what I am saying is that the member who is in charge of this piece of legislation is aware of two chemicals—two chemicals—that are responsible for these 45 deaths and 25 deaths in the year prior: 45 deaths this year and 25 the year prior. With that knowledge, the member has the ability to have created a better-drafted piece of legislation to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: They’ll just invent another chemical.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Instead what we’re going to get, and to address the point raised by Nick Smith that there will just be another chemical created—and this is my original point with regard to the purpose of the Psychoactive Substances Act. The purpose of the Psychoactive Substances Act was to regulate substances—

💬 Hon Member: It was.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: It was. It was to regulate substances, and we had an interim licensing scheme in the original Psychoactive Substances Act in 2013, which was revoked in 2014 in response to moral panic because the issue became prevalent.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: It was a disaster.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Why was it a disaster, Dr Nick Smith?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Because of the amount of harm that turned up—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Hang on, hang on—no. You’re either speaking or you’re yielding.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Sorry, Madam Chair. OK, well, the rhetorical question: because of the harm that was caused. We actually, to my knowledge, saw no recorded deaths as a result of those drugs that were listed within the regulatory scheme in the original interim licensing scheme within the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013. But what we saw, after we pushed this problem underground and revoked that interim licensing scheme, was that there was the creation, innovation, and invention of these new, more harmful dangerous chemicals. So what I am asking for is for the Psychoactive Substances Act to be used as was intended: to regulate to reduce harm. It is incredibly shoddy lawmaking to be approaching with a broad brush-stroke this piece of legislation.