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

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. While I’d like to begin by commending the member in charge of this bill, Simeon Brown, who’s a fellow first-term MP, on having his member’s bill drawn from the ballot, I do have to say though that I’m quite disappointed that this bill has made it this far. Evidence tells us that if this bill were passed, not only would it not achieve—well-meaning and well-intentioned as it is—what it aims to but it would actually be damaging. Now, if the Opposition really wanted meaningful change, they would propose legislation that would actually be effective in cutting the rate of demand and supply and minimising the harm that is caused to our communities by these drugs. This bill won’t achieve that. This bill is same old, same old: lock them up, lock them up for longer, and throw away the key.

Now, the war on drugs—increasingly there is consensus internationally that the war on drugs has failed. In fact, the deputy leader of the National Party, the Hon Paula Bennett, wearing her drug spokesperson cap, has actually acknowledged that. It’s a shame that the leadership doesn’t quite have a unified view on this, because the Hon Simon Bridges in fact has stated the direct opposite and signed up National as an ally in Donald Trump’s war on drugs. Instead, this Government has recently announced a significant move to align psychoactive drugs with class A drugs and create class C1 for new substances awaiting categorisation. That bill, when passed—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! This bill please.

Well, this bill would be redundant if that bill were passed. But, anyway, this Government takes the issue of illicit drug supply and abuse incredibly seriously. What we don’t need is yet another ad hoc measure from that side of the House. This coalition Government has a more comprehensive, well-thought-out plan that will do much more to address drug demand and supply, and address the illicit drug trade. That sits alongside work to fix the health system and ensure—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! The third reading is generally as reported back from the committee of the whole House and a summary of this current bill. Please don’t traverse into other policy matters.

But the point of this bill is that it doesn’t actually address what it aims to address, in terms of making sure—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Well, speak to that directly, thank you.

—that those addicted can get the help that they need and addressing drug demand. This bill does neither of those and, in fact, on this side of the House we act on evidence and not on what is politically expedient. Thank you.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. I rise to speak on this, the third reading of the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill in the name of MP Simeon Brown. I, again, want to put on the table a congratulations to Simeon for bringing an issue of absolute importance to the House and being so passionate about it.

In summary, there were 78 submissions from interested groups and individuals on this piece of legislation, and the Justice Committee heard oral evidence from seven submitters. I’m actually going to quote from the select committee report because it’s incredibly pertinent. The heading that I’ve chosen to focus on is “The impact of psychoactive substances on Māori” and I particularly want to emphasise that Hāpai Te Hauora and Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua submitted that “increasing penalties around psychoactive substances would have a disproportionate effect on Māori.” They suggested that any changes to legislation should have an approach that includes support through health services, education, and rehabilitation, and the effects on Māori should be specifically addressed to avoid further disadvantage.

I now want to focus on some submission points, and these are pertinent. One of those was that drug use should be treated as a health issue and, in fact, this bill does not do that. So if anybody wants to know fundamentally why we are voting this bill down, it is because of that particular point.

The other thing I want to highlight is that Simeon Brown’s bill wanted to focus on drug sellers and suppliers. He thought they should be punished and sent to jail. Well, the reality of focusing on that group is that those people have addictions. Those are the people that we want to provide with the education and the health and the ability to reform their lives. So what I do want to put on the table is that our response to this bill has been very clear. It’s called the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill, which addresses the issues that I’ve outlined. We want to treat drug use as a health issue, we don’t want people to go to prison, and the other aspect is we want to make sure that the importers and manufacturers of these drugs do go to jail and are punished.

That is my contribution tonight and I hope that the public are very clear as to the rationale and our side’s view about this particular bill. Kia ora.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s my privilege to stand in support of the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill under the name of Simeon Brown, a hard-working MP from Pakuranga. He has brought in this bill—

💬 Michael Wood: Makes one on that side of the House.

Sorry, I didn’t get that Michael, what did you say?

💬 Michael Wood: I said it makes one on that side of the House.

All right. The thing is that the person who got the bill drawn is, I think, hard-working; who has got a thought to put in front of Parliament to discuss. Bringing this up to this stage, the third reading, makes a lot of difference. It is not just that he has got this bill to this stage—I remember that when he was a member of the local board he organised a protest when a shop was being opened up in Manurewa and he managed to organise a really big protest and the result of that was that shop was not opened. So I know he is hard-working, passionate, and wants to make sure that the harm to the community is stopped.

A little while ago we were also debating another bill where the leader of the ACT Party was trying to say that I have just learnt this speaking skill. For the nine minutes I have taken to express my views I would like to clarify for him—I know that he is very passionate, he wants his bill to be debated but it takes a while; keep some patience, you will get your turn in due course.

This bill is needed to protect New Zealanders from the harm of illegal psychoactive substances which are currently being supplied and are proving to be extremely dangerous. I would like to clarify what Louisa Wall was trying to say: it is important that we should stop and make sure that the suppliers don’t supply these harmful substances to the users, and they are not the addicted people—the addicted people are getting supply from someone who is making some profit and has got a motive behind supplying these things. The non-approved products which are being seen are having far greater harmful effect than was envisioned when the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 was put in place. What we have seen is that every time there is a product which is banned, there is a chemical change in some formulation and that product becomes un-banned, and that is being supplied to the people.

Day by day, the strength of these products is increasing, which is really harmful. We have seen in the last 18 months more than 80 people have died because of the effect of these psychoactive substances and we want to ensure—and that is the main intention, that we should make sure that the suppliers don’t supply these things to the addicted people. Definitely, we want to ensure that the addicted people should be given treatment under the health—but, obviously, if there is no supply how are they going to use these products? So these products are far more potent than what was seen before the regulations were put in place, and require strict penalties to deter people from producing and supplying these products to individuals.

This legislation targets the suppliers and the distributor. I would like to repeat that: this bill is targeting suppliers and distributors, rather than the users. We will maintain a focus on treating the use of psychoactive substances as health issues, encouraging health and rehabilitation services rather than punitive measures. It is very important that we make sure that the suppliers are targeted to stop supplying this product. I am repeating this again and again because some of the parties were supporting this bill up until the second reading, but now they are not supporting it. They should understand that this is an issue which is affecting New Zealanders, and we should be passing this bill tonight so that we can have effective control—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you. I apologise to the member; your time has expired.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker—a real pleasure to rise and speak briefly on the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill. I do also want to congratulate the member Simeon Brown on getting his bill drawn from the biscuit tin, however, that’s about all I do want to say in regards to this bill. Essentially, the bill as we see it is going to absolutely punish those who are also using and are addicted to drugs.

💬 Simon O’Connor: That’s a presumption.

It is not a presumption; it is what we know about drug use. I’d just like to address what the previous speaker just spoke about. He talked about the fact that this bill is about getting those baddies, right—getting those baddies who create these substances. Absolutely, we agree with that, but what we know is that the majority in the crossover of drug use is quite substantial for people who are placed in a position of dealing in order to take care of their addiction. It’s a really sad picture, and I agree—80 deaths we understand have happened—this is not a good story for us. However, what I can say is that this bill will become redundant because of the work that the Government is doing. In fact, we will be treating drugs as a health problem. The Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill is occurring. We are working through it, and we have heard the evidence. So it is particularly useful for this debate to come very quickly to an end and, with that, I commend this bill to the House.

I welcome the news that the previous contributor to the debate commends the bill to the House, and I look forward to her vote and perhaps that of other colleagues on her side. I think I can not only agree with the end of her speech but also the start, in which she commended our parliamentary colleague Simeon Brown for having the hard work and the good luck of, first, putting the bill into the ballot, and, second, of course, having it drawn—hard work and good luck respectively.

In this, the third and final reading of the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill, I’d like to acknowledge, as is usual, not only the member, as I’ve done, but also those who have contributed throughout the process in other ways. I acknowledge—as I’m sure all members of this House do, albeit that ultimately, sadly, some, it seems, will not support it, but nevertheless I’m sure they would join us in acknowledging—the victims of these awful substances within our community; those who have campaigned for sensible drug laws, including and especially the families of such victims; and political parties who have supported the bill at least until this stage, albeit that we understand that may not continue.

In relation to the bill and its intention, much has been said that I don’t need to re-traverse. Of course, within the title of the bill, we see that it will be increasing the penalty for supply and distribution. It does what it says on the tin, and lest there be any confusion about the point, it is for suppliers and distributors as distinct from those who use. I do appreciate the point that was made by Louisa Wall in relation to the potential crossover, but nevertheless there is a large number of people who—there are a large number of people? I might have been right the first time. In any case, many people are in the category of supplying and distributing but not using themselves, and it seems to me obvious that we should do something about that problem.

The commencement date of the bill, if it should pass, would be the date after which it receives the Royal assent, and I just make that point simply to note the urgency of the matter, not only in relation to the bill but in relation to the difficult and tragic issue, indeed, of those who are suffering in this way. So it is that if this bill doesn’t pass, then I hope that the Government will at least do something else useful in that space.

Previously within the legislative process, we had an amendment to the really key part of the Act, which was to increase the penalty for supply and distribution from two years to eight years initially, in the form of the bill that was introduced by Mr Brown. That was extended so that it would be increased from two years to 14 years. That was at the initiation of New Zealand First, so something of an auction—but they’ve been all auction and no action, because they are going to go missing, it seems, in action at the final and crucial stage of the bill, which is a shame. They will go as silent as the “p” in psychoactive. That’s a real shame, actually, for reasons that are all too real and all too meaningful for those in our community who desperately need this change to our law.

There are a number of different dichotomies we can explore. We’ve talked about supply and distribution on the one hand versus usage. Another is the distinction between that which is necessary and that which is sufficient. It’s been a criticism of Mr Brown’s bill from the other side of the House that it won’t be the silver bullet, that it won’t do everything that is needed in this space. Of course, they are right, but that much was never claimed by Mr Brown or anyone on this side of the House. It was not ever said or claimed that this would be an entire solution to a difficult and complex problem within our society. But while it’s not sufficient, it is necessary, at least, to do something, so while it is not everything, it is, at least, something that can and therefore should be done towards solving this terrible problem in our society.

Another dichotomy that’s been raised with particular emphasis from the other side of the House is justice versus health. So we’ve been hearing discussions on the head of a pin—maybe not by angels, but, in any case, by those who would draw a false choice between justice and health in saying that drug use and supply should be treated as a health issue and not a justice issue. Well, of course, it should be treated as both because it is both those things. I don’t think anyone in this House would deny the fact that we do need to treat drug use as a health issue, and so for those who are addicted, it is a matter of health in that we must emphasise, encourage, and do everything necessary and, indeed, possible to facilitate their rehabilitation. But that’s not to say that it’s not also a justice issue and that we shouldn’t also treat harshly those who would increase the misery of their fellow Kiwis by dealing in these substances.

Other distinctions we can draw, perhaps for the purpose of highlighting a meaningless contrast, is the causing of death in other ways that our statute book recognises as criminal to the extent of murder or manslaughter, whereas we’ve had relatively light penalties for those who cause the death in a very foreseeable, almost reckless way, I would argue, by supplying drugs to them that would eventually cause their death. So there’s a moral and a legal imperative for aligning the penalties for such drug suppliers and to do justice for such drug users in those situations.

As opposed to the arguments made on the other side of the House regarding prevention versus deterrence, I just want to make a quick comment, which is to say that whereas the argument is frequently made by those on the other side of politics, including in relation to this bill, that harsher penalties do not necessarily deter would-be criminals—that may or may not be true. I don’t think it’s as straightforward a matter even so far as that goes, but it’s worth noting that there is a preventative element as opposed to a deterrent element, such that a drug supplier—a dealer, in common parlance—for the period of time that he or she is prevented physically, by being detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure, from continuing to ply their trade of such misery—that’s actually a useful thing to society. They, in turn, can be rehabilitated, not necessarily from a perspective of physical drug addiction but in terms of their ways, perhaps other shortcomings in their life or lifestyle such as a lack of education, such as a lack of opportunities within society, a lack of connection, a lack of purpose in their life, and so on.

So I will draw to a conclusion my response very shortly by simply noting again the hard work of Simeon Brown and others who have advocated in this space. I think that he has done a wonderful job of bringing this to the attention of the House. I hope, perhaps in vain, that it might receive the support that it deserves and that the people of New Zealand who are affected in this way certainly deserve and, indeed, so desperately need. Thank you.

This is a split call. It will go to Labour first. I call Dr Duncan Webb—five minutes.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. A very short contribution—I just want to say, you know, this is a bill which was brought to the House with all the right intentions, and the fact of the matter is that many of the objectives underpinning the bill we all share. So in that respect, I think that this has been a valuable exercise, that we absolutely want to address the harm that these pernicious substances cause, and we’ve absolutely taken steps in this regard, but it’s a real demonstration of the fact that we need to do this in a planned manner, in a manner which addresses all aspects of the harm, not only the criminal law aspects but most importantly those health-related aspects. Also, we need to make sure that the victims of the crime, those people who are in fact having these substances sold to them, are appropriately dealt with and not criminalised, not further victimised and further traumatised.

So good work in bringing this to the attention of the House, but this is work that the Government is undertaking in a much wider, more effective programme. So with that very short contribution, this bill is not supported on this side of the House.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in opposition to this bill, and the reason for that is called evidence. I can’t believe I’m going to say this, but the only decent contribution to this debate, except for the one that’s in progress, perhaps, was made by Chlöe Swarbrick. The reason I can’t believe it is twofold. One is I’m just not used to praising Green MPs, and two is I can’t understand why the Green Party thinks that people should be able to buy and sell marijuana but their approach to regulation of business means you can barely sell or buy anything else.

But the real contradiction is actually in the National Party putting this bill through. There seems to be a belief that with no evidence whatsoever, they can reduce harm from drugs. I’ve just looked through the member in charge’s contribution—there is no evidence. That’s why Chlöe Swarbrick made the best speech, because she was the only one that came to the House armed with facts and pointed out that the history of trying to fight drugs with stricter penalties has not been successful. The National Party comes to this House and says, “We want to expand sentences, but we have no proof that expanding sentences will keep our kids safe or reduce harm from drugs.” That’s the problem.

I might add that there’s a political problem with it, because we are starting to witness a National Party guided by its backbenchers with this kind of Ronald Reagan, moral majority approach to social issues that is more at home in Alabama than Ashburton. It’s a far cry from the John Key who could mince down the catwalk at the Pride Parade in his lilac T-shirt and effortlessly win urban liberal voters, and I worry for my erstwhile allies in Government and, hopefully, my colleagues in Government again that they are taking that approach. But that’s what it looks like to the average New Zealander tonight.

We need to reduce drug harm. It is a tragedy that we have substances being made and sold to vulnerable New Zealanders and harming their development and leading to deaths when we have alternatives that could be better. But it’s also a tragedy to recognise that the bill put before us is exactly cut from the same mould as the legislation that formed those substances. You see, nobody in an open market would ever purchase synthetic cannabis if that was the option available and there were other options there. The simple fact is that these drugs are created by prohibition. The only reason it’s viable to make and sell them is that the natural alternative has been prohibited by this House, and the National Party comes along with this suggestion that maybe if we do a bit more of the thing that created the problem, we’ll solve it. How crazy is that?

So I won’t be supporting this bill. What I will be doing is supporting a rational approach to keeping New Zealand’s kids safe from drugs, and that goes a little bit like this: we need to first of all ask the question “Has prohibition been a success?” That is how you get to deciding whether or not to support a bill that would increase penalties for people buying and selling drugs. Then we might ask what other options are available. This is just simple problem definition, option generation, and cost-benefit analysis—how any Government should make laws and regulations. We might ask ourselves what is happening when our friends around the world in Canada and Colorado start to try different approaches where they treat drugs as a health problem and don’t just try and force it underground and have people taking clandestine substances from criminal elements, getting upsold on to worse drugs. That’s what our friends around the world are trying.

Let me concede something to the proponents of prohibition: there are some points being raised. It may not be all rosy, but it’s a debate that is well worth having, a modern debate about how we keep our kids safe from the harms of drugs, because we’re not doing very well now and we’re not going to do better just by changing the sentences. That’s the kind of debate that we should be having. Sadly, we’ve had this retrograde step in the form of Simeon Brown’s member’s bill, and for that reason, I proudly oppose it so we can have a more enlightened drug debate. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

The issue of synthetic drugs such as synthetic cannabis is killing about 50 New Zealanders a year, and what is even more concerning for this Parliament is those that are dying are some of the young people who have the greatest prospects and future ahead of them. I am simply appalled, as a member of the Justice Committee that listened to the impassioned pleas of families the likes of Lewis Jones, who listened to the people on the front line in our ambulances and our accident and emergency departments, that this Parliament would stick its head in the sand and pretend that this is not a problem. We had an awful tragedy earlier this year in Christchurch with the shootings at that synagogue, and this Parliament came together and said that we were not going to sit idly by and watch 51 of our fellow citizens lose their life. In just three weeks, we passed the laws to deal with those semi-automatic weapons. Why, I ask this Parliament, can we not come together on this issue of synthetics, recognise its seriousness, and back my colleague Simeon Brown’s bill?

I want to say this is not a choice of whether you have serious offending and criminal sentences for dealing in this stuff as compared with whether you have education or treatment or proper customs controls. Members on this side of the House say that you need to have all of those. But what I find insulting is this: a single dealer in synthetic cannabis has been shown to sell—one dealer—sufficient product to kill 14 people, and the maximum penalty that that person can face under the law is a maximum of two years in prison.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: How much?

Two years. Now, does any member of the House think that really is just? I do not. That’s why I am backing this bill.

There is a fantastic editorial in the New Zealand Listener this week, and it poses this challenge to people like Mr Seymour, who says that prohibition does not work: what we do know is legalisation works even worse. Why do we know that? Well, in 2013, this Parliament was persuaded by Peter Dunne to try and regulate these drugs. It was a disaster. We, every one of us, saw in our accident and emergency departments that the moment that the Government said that something like synthetics was safe, use went through the roof, and what a disaster we had being confronted in our accident and emergency wards. This Parliament came together within a matter of weeks and passed law to undo that and to ensure that we had proper penalties.

Now, my colleague Simeon Brown has talked about the 50 deaths that occur from these synthetic drugs. In the last week, I’ve been working with the families of the worst road accident in New Zealand in the last decade. On 27 June last year, we had the tragic loss of seven lives—not included in my colleague’s number. What was absolutely plain was that the driver of that vehicle, on a perfectly clear morning, had been stoked up on synthetic cannabis. Again I say to members—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am strongly supporting this bill of Simeon Brown, because the scourge of synthetic drugs is costing the lives of so many young New Zealanders, and I am appalled by the reasons that the Government parties—Labour, New Zealand First, and the Greens—are giving for their opposition to this bill. It is disingenuous, and it is political. They, basically, do not want any National Party MP to get any bill through this House. You could not find in this Parliament a more gentlemanly, polite, and well-intended member than my colleague Simeon Brown, and if you cut to the chase of members’ opposition to this bill, it’s that they dare not allow him to gain the credit for dealing with this very real issue. It is costing the lives of a New Zealander, on average, every single week, and the argument that members opposite are making, “Oh, at some point we might have a Government bill.”, is simply putting at risk further young lives.

I also want to challenge the Government on the process this bill has been through. This isn’t a bill that turned up yesterday. I remember on the issue of the awful tragedy that occurred in Christchurch, we banged the law through over the loss of 51 lives in a very short period. This bill came to the House in February last year. It’s been through a full select committee process, it has been through a full committee process. The Government parties’ opposition to this bill also reflects a broader and deeper problem: that it is fundamentally soft on the issue of drugs. If we look at the amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act—that it is, effectively, going to prohibit, according to both the Police Association and in terms of the New Zealand Law Society, any possession for any of the range of drugs, including these that we debate here, is extremely concerning. The fact that they are having a referendum on the legalisation of cannabis has them sending a signal to New Zealand that this isn’t really serious, it isn’t a problem, and, if we look at the 17 months that this Government has been dragging the chain on officials’ recommendations for the introduction of random testing, what we see with the Government parties’ opposition to that bill, and those other legislative measures, is a Government that fundamentally is soft on drugs.

Let me tell you why that matters: I am sick and tired of hearing members opposite talk about issues of wellbeing, and having this complete blind spot about the issues of drugs and what they are doing in our society. I don’t care whether it’s the issue of domestic violence, whether it’s the issue of suicide, particularly amongst our youth, whether it’s the issue of educational underachievement, workplace deaths, deaths on our roads. Actually, so many of those are negatively impacted by the use of drugs, and this Government is ignoring that problem.

I also want to say there’s a real naivety in the Government around this issue of drug dealers and drug users. Here’s the Government line and why it is flawed: they live in this world that says, “There’s a bunch of drug users over here. They are innocent. They need drug treatment, and they are completely separate from those that are the dealers”. Actually, that’s not the way it is in the real world. Many of the people that are selling and profiting from the use of synthetics are also the dealers, and that became very clear in the Justice Committee. So this sort of soft approach, that the only response to this country’s drug problems is going to be treatment, is out of step with the reality. We do need to take a firm approach with customs at the border in preventing drugs coming into this country. We need to take a firm approach with the manufacturers, and with the dealers. We need to have an approach in our schools of education, so that young people can make better choices. But enforcement has to be part of the picture, and ensuring that the penalties for those that are spinning and selling synthetics and ruining the lives of New Zealanders—there needs to be accountability, there needs to be enforcement, and that is what my colleague Simeon Brown is seeking with this bill.

So I plead to the conscience of the Labour, New Zealand First, and Green MPs that are opposing this bill: they are doing New Zealand a great disservice, they are doing those that work in the coalface, of those—

💬 Hon Member: Our young people.

Our young people—that are being hit by the scourge of these synthetic drugs, they are doing a grave disservice, and every day that we delay putting proper penalties in place and adopting this bill is putting more lives of young New Zealanders at risk. I’m pleased to stand with National colleagues. We will not have the next death from a synthetic drug on our conscience, and I challenge the conscience of those members opposite who continue to turn a blind eye to this very serious issue.