Misuse of Drugs (Pseudoephedrine) Amendment Bill

Mr Speaker, thank you very much, and if you’ll excuse me for one second, I was just reading some of the finer points of this beautiful bill before I found the part I need to read in order to ensure that it is correctly read. And that is: I present a legislative statement on the Misuse of Drugs (Pseudoephedrine) Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the Misuse of Drugs (Pseudoephedrine) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Health Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 14 March 2024 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

This is a very simple piece of legislation, but it also will have significant effects and benefits for New Zealanders, particularly in flu season. The purpose of this bill is to restore access to cold and flu medicines containing pseudoephedrine. Prior to 2011, these medicines were available to purchase from New Zealand pharmacies. In 2011, however, pseudoephedrine was reclassified as a class B2 controlled drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Effectively, this change meant that cold and flu medicines containing pseudoephedrine could only be accessed with a prescription from a registered medical practitioner. As a result of these restrictions, pharmaceutical companies withdrew from the New Zealand market, and New Zealanders can no longer access these very effective medicines for very annoying ailments, particularly during the winter flu seasons.

The bill itself, as I’ve said, is straightforward. It changes the classification of pseudoephedrine from a class B2 drug, as it is currently listed in the Misuse of Drugs Act, to a class C3 controlled drug. This will allow cold and flu medicines containing pseudoephedrine to be sold in New Zealand pharmacies without a prescription. Under the Act, drugs that pose a high risk of harm are classified as class B drugs, and drugs that pose a moderate risk of harm are classified as class C drugs. The classification of pseudoephedrine as a class C controlled drug simultaneously achieves the policy intention behind the bill while retaining the appropriate controls for illicit use. Under the Misuse of Drugs Regulations, class C3 controlled drugs are defined as partially exempted drugs. Partially exempted drugs are exempt from some of the requirements, such as storage requirements, in the regulations that would restrict access to these drugs for therapeutic purposes.

The bill also makes some consequential amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations to ensure consistency with the Act. The Government is also making a change to the Medicines Regulations to classify cold and flu products containing pseudoephedrine as restricted medicines. With this change, customers purchasing these medicines will need to do so by way of a face-to-face transaction with a pharmacist. The pharmacist must record information and can highlight advice as appropriate, including counselling patients who should not take pseudoephedrine for clinical reasons.

The previous ban on selling pseudoephedrine products without a prescription was brought in as pseudoephedrine was being used in the manufacture of methamphetamine, or P, a class A controlled drug. The change, unfortunately, had negligible effects on the overall methamphetamine market in New Zealand, as suppliers simply adapted to the law change, notably by importing more finished product. And, as has been reported in the New Zealand Herald, the networks that New Zealand gangs fostered as they created those new supply chains has arguably increased the sophistication of organised crime in New Zealand and had quite significant negative impacts on New Zealanders during that time.

The classification of pseudoephedrine as a class C3 controlled drug will ensure that customs and police retain the necessary powers to control its illicit use. You’ll need a licence to import or export products containing pseudoephedrine, so customs will be able to seize unlicensed importations. These border controls will also ensure that available products containing pseudoephedrine are of a high quality. Some groups have raised concerns that pharmacies will become targets for ram raid - style burglaries and aggravated robberies by those involved in the manufacture of methamphetamine. It should be noted that there is no requirement for pharmacists to stock these products and that there are measures available to pharmacists to prevent retail crime. And it’s worth noting that not only is it voluntary to stock these products but pharmacies presently stock other products that some people might like to steal. To buy into the logic that a legitimate business should not stock a product by choice because they are intimidated by criminals I think is a commentary on where New Zealand has got to in terms of retail crime rather than a pragmatic response. If people are going to commit crimes, the answer is to punish the people committing the crime, not every New Zealander with a cold and flu.

I further add that medicines containing pseudoephedrine are used worldwide for their effective relief of cold and flu symptoms. This bill strikes the balance between giving consumers access to a useful medicine and enabling law enforcement to curb the manufacture of methamphetamine, the two goals in balance under this new law. As a result, New Zealanders will be able to breathe easier—literally—knowing that they can effectively treat their cold and flu symptoms.

I want to just mention that I’ve had an interesting experience today dealing with media asking about all of the terrible things that could go wrong. I think, unfortunately, it is a sad commentary on some of the worst of New Zealand that we are so focused—we are a country that appears to be afraid of the implications of cough medicine, if you listen to some in the mainstream media. All we are doing is trying to make life easier and more comfortable for New Zealanders by removing restrictions on their freedoms. All we are doing is ensuring that the rules around cold and cough medicine in New Zealand will be nearly identical to Australia and nearly indistinguishable from those in other countries such as the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada, countries where people can go into their pharmacy and buy some effective cold and cough medicine if they have the winter chills and the winter ills. That is what we are seeking to do, and I think it’s an important commentary on New Zealand, and particularly the state of our media and some commentators, that we actually weigh the costs and benefits of our decisions rather than constantly beating ourselves up with more rules, more restrictions, because of the “what-ifers”.

For those that are concerned, as I’ve said, pharmacies are not required to sell these pharmaceuticals. It is a choice, and if people make that choice, then it is the responsibility of the New Zealand State to protect people’s basic right to buy and sell legal products, whether they’re a dairy with tobacco, whether they are a pharmacy with metham—oh, sorry, with pseudoephedrine; we certainly would not be protecting them if they were selling that—or whether it is any other business, whether it is a timber yard selling building supplies. Our responsibility is to have a society and uphold the law in a society where people are able to get on with their lawful business and, when crimes are committed, ensure that we punish them.

So, without further ado and the risk of any further a gaffe, I will conclude this speech and look forward to hearing the debate and which of the other parties in Parliament are willing to support this small movement towards rational lawmaking, common sense, and making life easier for New Zealanders, balancing the risks and rewards of decisions, and allowing people to live on their own terms. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Mr Speaker, thank you. It’s a pleasure to take a call on this bill to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act to reclassify pseudoephedrine as a class C3 drug from a class B2 drug, thereby, along with the changes to how pseudoephedrine is regulated under the Medicines Act, making the medicine available over the counter.

I too have responded to media queries, like the Associate Minister of Health (Pharmac) has today, and it is interesting to me that after being involved in the COVID response, some journalists have taken a peculiar interest in my health and when I last had a case of the sniffles. It’s been over 10 years since I used pseudoephedrine for a cough and cold because, obviously, it wasn’t available after 2011, but I did, and I have to say I liked it. As a medicine for a common cough and cold, it is OK, it is good—studies bear that out. It has some side effects, like cardiac side effects, but it’s useful for the treatment of common coughs and colds. Sensible measures to make medicines that are convenient for common symptoms should be promoted.

As a Government, the Labour Party really led a number of initiatives to change that, to improve the ability of our pharmacies to give treatments for common conditions. This included the minor ailments scheme that we brought in over winter to make sure that common conditions, even as simple as nits or skin conditions, could be treated by pharmacies conveniently without having to go for a prescription to a doctor, thereby taking work away from overburdened general practitioners and making conditions be resolved more quickly. In addition, we brought in changes that meant a number of vaccines could be given in pharmacies where they weren’t before. We support these types of practical changes that make medicine more accessible to people.

But there is another dimension to pseudoephedrine and that is that one of the reasons why we like to take it for coughs and colds is actually in the heart of what its downside is: it also has stimulatory effects, it also peps us up when we’re feeling sick and run down and shivery, and that allows us to keep doing all the things we have to do in our busy life. It’s that characteristic, as well as its good effects as a decongestant, that giving you that little bit of pep, that is the same characteristic that means it’s also a drug of abuse and can be used to produce methamphetamine.

That was why, in 2009, John Key’s National Government brought in changes to the regulations that restricted the sale of meth—the ones we’re debating today and the Medicines Act changes. I want to share some of the quotes that John Key made at the time, and it gets back to this very issue of the dual properties of pseudoephedrine: “What seems like straightforward pain and symptom relief to you and me is gold to a drug cook. It’s just about all a first time P cook needs to get their drug enterprise started.” He went on to say “it’s a $1.5 billion problem, it’s wrecking lives and it’s wrecking families,... As a parent I can tell you … obviously you worry about your children.” And he made no apologies for how tough he was going to be: it’s “why [this Government] … come[s] at the problem from all directions. By cracking down on precursors, breaking supply chains, providing better routes into treatment,” and so on.

So my question in addressing this bill, and I think what the Parliament and the Health Committee needs to turn its mind to, is: what’s changed? Meth hasn’t gone away, are we giving up on this issue? How do we evaluate these very valid safety concerns that communities, and pharmacies in particular, have?

Now, the Minister has said that this will be unlikely to impact the supply of methamphetamine in New Zealand. Well, it will have an effect on pharmacies. For over a decade, they will have not been the targets of ram raids due to pseudoephedrine, and they could be once again. I haven’t heard compelling evidence that there are reasons why that won’t be the case. It’s very important for us to be able to go over that evidence at select committee. Pharmacists have raised the issue of whether or not they can access registers in order to make sure that we can pick up on instances of abuse if that happens. It’s not clear to me if the restricted classification of the medicines will lead to a register being in place. We need the chance also to hear from drug experts, addiction specialists, and pharmacologists. The Labour Party will be supporting this bill to the Health Committee. We think it has some merits, but we have many questions as well.

E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Drugs are winning the war on drugs. We know, if you look at the evidence—as this Government has promised us that we would—that at both ends of extremes, that being in criminal prohibition or in a complete legal free market, you have the maximisation of harms when it comes to substances. That’s because, whether you’re talking about a scenario where you have those who operate in criminal organisations who control the supply chains, or those who operate in commercial entities controlling the supply chains, you have the maximisation of harm because profit is the key motive. The way that you go about pulling back from those extremes of harms is through sensible regulation. I am proud to stand here as a member of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand who is the only party who have been consistent—whether it’s alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, pseudoephedrine, or otherwise—on substances. All of the arguments that we heard from the Minister just now with regard to cost-benefit analysis, with regard to people’s freedoms or otherwise, apply to the logic that we need to overhaul this Frankenstein law.

So let’s unpack precisely why this law is so Frankenstein and, actually, in fact, some of the self-perpetrating perverse mechanisms that exist within the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. The first is the expert advisory committee which was established in the early 2000s with the intention to advise where substances should be classified within the Misuse of Drugs Act, and the penalties that should be associated to them. The only recommendations that the expert advisory committee can make about where substances should be classified is where they should be classified in reference to other substances that are currently already classified, and therefore we bind this expert advisory committee to, effectively, only make recommendation about what penalties these substances should carry—not about more meaningful harm intervention approaches.

Here I just offer to members of the Government who are interested or who may be interested in their decisions being based on data and evidence, as their coalition agreements say they will be—I’d refer them to the 2014 Ministerial Forum on Alcohol Advertising and Sponsorship, which said that we need to do away with alcohol advertising and sponsorship. I’d refer them to He Ara Oranga, the mental health and addiction inquiry, which said that we need to move to decriminalise substances so that we can enable a harm reduction approach. I point them to Turuki! Turuki!, the safe and effective justice review, which actually said that we need to go a step further and look to legalise the supply chain of certain substances, so to remove them from the hands of criminal organisations.

I would also just refer to something which is implicit within this legislation that we are debating at the first reading today, and that is when it comes to the process and the way that the Misuse of Drugs Act operates with regard to classification, in order to introduce a substance for classification, and therefore for associated penalties within the Misuse of Drugs Act, all you need to do is pass an Order in Council. For those who are following along at home, that process is incredibly quick. It can pass through in the blink of an eye in this place—although, the Greens do force a debate on it every second time, and, ironically, the last time that this went through, we actually got some time from the ACT Party to prosecute our case. But in order to down-classify or to declassify a substance, you need an entire amendment bill, and therefore the select committee process that comes with it, and that can take anywhere from a few months to a year-plus, and, obviously, all of the potential for fearmongering and moral panic that come with that.

So the point of unpacking this is to point out the ways that this law—this dog of a law—perpetuates injustices and anti-evidence outcomes for our community, much to the detriment, actually, of the public purse. For members of the National Party, in particular, let alone members of the ACT Party, who profess to be libertarians despite showcasing that it is relatively—

💬 Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I really hesitate to interrupt the member in the middle of a speech—

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: No, you don’t.

💬 Hon Member: You do it all the time.

💬 Hon David Seymour: —but, with the greatest of respect—and points of order have to be heard in silence, for those still learning the rules—many members, including me, have been pulled up by many Speakers many times for, effectively, giving a general debate speech that has nothing to do with the bill. Trying to tangentially link to the bill every few minutes while making a speech that in substance is about totally different policy questions that aren’t actually a question before the House has been pulled up by every other Speaker every time that it’s been tried. I hope that you’ll think about that in this instance.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I take the Minister’s point, but I do recognise that many of us, including myself, are not experts in pseudoephedrine or drugs at all. So I will give the member her remaining minutes.

💬 Hon David Seymour: Fresh point of order. Mr Speaker, do you intend to make a new ruling that if the Speaker or the member have no expertise on a question, they can speak about anything else they like? That would be an extraordinary ruling for a Speaker to make.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. What this bill seeks to do is to down-classify a substance. What I am doing in my speech is speaking to precisely that mechanism and the inconsistencies with the way that one might introduce a new substance for classification. It is specifically pertinent to the operation of the legislation.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): That’s right.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Thank you, Mr Speaker. So referring back to exactly what it is that I was unpacking here, which is data and evidence and many of the points that the Minister put forward in his very precious speech, it is the fact that there are inconsistencies in the way that we go about introducing substances for classification which require us just to pass an Order in Council through this House, which can occur in the blink of an eye. But in order for us to down-classify or to declassify a substance, we need an entire amendment bill. That fundamentally entrenches an anti-evidence approach to substances in this country. That leaves us, actually, with the conclusion, as raised by the Minister himself in his introductory remarks, that we are miles away from the jurisdictions which he himself compared us to—to Australia, to the United States, to Canada, and to otherwise, where they are moving light years ahead of us with a far more evidence-based approach to substances, and that’s something the Greens will continue to push for.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to support this bill. We know that prescriptions are currently required to access products containing pseudoephedrine, but manufacturers have allowed their product approvals to lapse, so there’s currently no pseudoephedrine products available in New Zealand. These tighter controls have not affected the overall supply of methamphetamine in New Zealand. So this bill reclassifies pseudoephedrine from a class B to a class C controlled drug, which allows for the sale of pseudoephedrine-based products for cold and flu without a prescription. It is an effective medicine, and allowing this will enable people who have a cold and a flu to improve their health and wellbeing. I support this bill.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of this bill and applaud the Minister for taking initiative to improve the lives of New Zealanders. As a family who suffers significantly from respiratory illnesses, having something that will alleviate this congestion in winter time will be excellent.

Unfortunately, the environment under which we currently live has changed significantly from when pseudoephedrine was re-classified. Unfortunately, there is a massive import of completed methamphetamine products into New Zealand, a rising crime trend that we need to combat. The pseudoephedrine is no longer the threat that it was at the time that it was re-classified. Therefore, I think it highly appropriate that we put New Zealanders, and the conditions that New Zealanders face during winter, at the forefront of our decision making. I support the bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m cautiously supportive of this bill, because I do think we need flexibility in relation to medicines and how people can access them, and I’m really mindful of the fact that as soon as there is a prescriptions regime or people need to see a doctor, that is automatically a barrier for our poorest, our most vulnerable, or people who are just having to make hard choices about where they spend their money. So if we don’t need to regulate it, then perhaps we shouldn’t.

But I do think there is a risk of organised crime exploiting this law change, and I think it will have impacts on two discrete groups really. One is pharmacists. It was good to hear the Minister say that pharmacists won’t be obliged to carry these medicines, although I think the fact they can opt in will have some perhaps unintended consequences about how people self-select and what that will mean for those that do and those that don’t but also for the most vulnerable communities, because despite the fact that there is evidence that there are these big drug cartels bringing methamphetamine in finished form into New Zealand, there will still be people in New Zealand who cannot afford to pay that premium and who would prefer to do the home-made option despite the difficulties with this.

So I think it is a bold claim for the Minister and the Government members to say that this problem is now in the past. One of the reasons the problem is in the past is because of the legislative change. So taking this to select committee, I think, will be a good way to explore what has caused the shift in the production and supply of methamphetamine and what the outcome will be of this law change. I do take note of the words of Ngāi Te Rangi chief executive Paora Stanley, who has said in the New Zealand Herald that the drug was taken off the shelves to keep gangs away from it and this will only exacerbate the impact on Māori. So it is a bold statement by the Government, and it’s interesting that the Government don’t seem to be that worried about potential crime and ram raids and other things that might happen to these opt-in pharmacies, because they are not going to limit the number of pharmacies who will be able to supply and, in fact, they’ve said that pharmacies can opt in. Will those pharmacies that opt in then become magnets for crime? I’m not sure.

That was the language that was used around the proposed repeal of—well, the repeal of the smoke-free legislation, so there seems to be a bit of an inconsistent application of rationale here, because, on one hand, with smoke-free, the Government is saying, “We are interested in crime; we’re interested in the impacts and the way gangs will use this, and therefore we’re not going to make particular shops magnets of crime.”; and then, on the other hand, they’ve had no regard to any kind of argument around that when it comes to pseudoephedrine.

One of the things that’s interesting to me is—well, one of the things I’ve learnt today, actually—is that pseudoephedrine, we know, treats colds and colds are viral but, actually, what it really treats are the symptoms of colds. Apparently, it also treats the symptoms of hangovers, which might make it immediately more popular, but it doesn’t treat the causes of colds, and so there are other mechanisms available, and my colleague the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall alluded to the fact that there is a kind of peppiness to the use of pseudoephedrine. So there are other things available that can be used.

I’m concerned about the groups of pharmacies that will opt into the scheme, because if there are too few of them, they will become identified really quickly, and they will be known as the pseudoephedrine pharmacies. And, therefore, will those pharmacists—like one of them who’s been in the media, Warren Flaunty; he’s mentioned that he’s been burgled at least a dozen times per year for pseudoephedrine—be targeted? Will they be identified? If there is a regime where people accessing the drug have to apply and write their name on a register and so on, will that put the pharmacist in a difficult position? How uncomfortable will that be? And will that mean that many pharmacies will just go, “This is not worth it. It’s too difficult for us.”?

So, in summary, I think, if there is a safe way to deregulate, of course we don’t want to regulate when there’s no need to. It’s a legitimate question to explore—what will the impacts be on methamphetamine? Will there be any impact at all if this medicine is available? I think we need to hear from experts. I think it’s a broader debate, and for that reason, cautiously, I think it’s good to take this bill to the select committee and to have that debate.

I’d like to take the call, if that’s OK? Thank you. So, first of all, Minister Seymour has argued that the ban on pseudoephedrine—I’d better make sure I say that right, sorry—has failed, as gangs continue to produce P. Doctors have disputed the Minister’s claims that there are no effective alternatives. In fact, we’ve even had the Waikato GP Dr Jo Scott-Jones say it doesn’t really make sense that we want to increase the risk to society by making that change when an effective medication is already available. I really want to talk about what this change will do and impact on our communities—

💬 Hon David Seymour: I’m sure the public will make up their mind on that.

And sorry for me speaking while you’re interrupting, David!

So Te Pāti Māori oppose this bill. Meth causes significant harm in communities in Aotearoa, so we have to be really clear on making an example of why we oppose it. It not only affects the individuals but it also causes social harm, including harm on all our whānau, all our mokopuna, all our communities. The argument and the rationale that this will make other people’s lives easier, we totally get, to be fair, but that’s assuming that all communities that are currently affected by meth are OK, and they’re not. In fact, probably our biggest worry and concern, again, is that this bill’s offering no alternative solution to approach the meth issue that we have in Aotearoa, predominantly in Māori communities. It assumes that, actually, there is no deficit position going on with meth in Aotearoa. And what’s worrying is that we ignore, once again, Māori communities that are hugely impacted by this drug.

It’s hypocritical that this bill is being prioritised today as the Government’s been taking a real hard approach on addressing crime, and the purpose of this legislation was actually introduced in the first place to tackle the crime and the production of P. It just makes no sense for ACT to be prioritising this when it inevitably leads to more crime.

Although our kaumātua and tamariki are often hit hardest by the cold and flu season and having more access to cold medications could make life easier, our issue, again, is that Māori communities are also those who bear the full brunt of the meth epidemic. So, again, we question why the bill is being put under urgency. Again, it seems to be for this Government that it’s not just about winter; it’s actually about taking on things that are attacking the vulnerable communities for us as Māori. Again, we had this whole rhetoric of justifying it, that it’s going to help people get well, but, actually, they’re ignoring the fact that my community and a lot of our communities are simply not well. So if there was a sincere intent from this Government and, indeed, this Minister to make people well, we would start by saying, “First and foremost, here’s our commitment to addressing the meth issues that we have in Aotearoa.”

We’re also concerned that the introduction of this legislation will retrigger the crime rates at pharmacies, as we saw in the late 2000s. Officials and pharmacies have warned and warned that allowing the sale will lead to a spike in meth-related crimes. We’ve got retired pharmacists who say that prior to the ban pharmacies were regularly targeted by ram raid - style robberies. So, again, if many pharmacists are saying this and cautioning—and this is their sector; it’s not the politicians’ sector—but there are not many politicians in this House who will sit there and get out on the ground and talk to those communities, as we saw with Paora, who are warning about the spike and what this will mean.

Again, what we’ve seen with this bill—and, I guess, some of the things that we’re concerned about is that it’s proposing to do good. We have the Minister here proposing that his interests are for all of Aotearoa, when, in fact, it’s for the privileged who don’t get to live, day in, day out, with the scab of this epidemic and how it is truly affecting our communities. So we caution, again, that we have a Government that turns a blind eye and a deaf ear to its communities that are most affected by these types of legislation. We will not be supporting this bill.

I rise to support the introduction of this bill to this House. This Government is committed to ensuring New Zealanders can access quality healthcare, in this case to access some of the most effective over-the-counter cold and flu medication without the need of a prescription. This bill strikes the balance between enabling New Zealanders to swiftly recover from cold and flu, and limiting public use of pseudoephedrine for the production of methamphetamine. Therefore, I support the bill. Thank you.

Last week was a great day for New Zealanders. Today’s a great day for sniffly New Zealanders, because what this bill does is it allows for the sale of effective cold medicines across the counter at pharmacies who choose to provide it across the country.

We used to be able to get pseudoephedrine across the counter. It was prohibited back in 2011 to slow the meth trade. It didn’t work, and so we’re going back to where we’ve come from. I’ll be interested, actually, in the views of the member Greg O’Connor, who knows a lot about this sector and has experience in this part of the world, as well. So I’ll be very interested in his views.

Now, members made some comments around crime. We did have the Commissioner of Police before the Justice Committee earlier—last week—and I’ll have to check the transcription, but my recollection was that he said there’d be very little impact on the crime trade. Most of the precursor comes through the border, and so the prime issues are not actually what they may seem. I commend the bill to the House and look forward to its passage.

There’s a book Chasing the Scream, that should be required reading for every member in this House, by a man called Johann Hari. He talks about the evolution of the war on drugs, talks about all sorts of different drugs, and he talks about, of course, Reefer Madness and how so often when we start talking about illegal drugs, in particular, immediately we go to some sort of “reefer madness”. So what we need to do is actually examine some facts around this. In that book, one thing he does talk about is that in societies, countries, jurisdictions that have tried to liberalise drugs, there’s one drug where all the rules they apply really go out the window—and that’s methamphetamine or P. The opiates, generally, we can handle, and all those other drugs, but P is out there on its own.

It’s interesting that as we make a decision, we really understand the journey—relatively short journey—of this, that we have arrived at New Zealand. Our waste-water testing around New Zealand—big towns, small towns, cities—is showing up vast amounts of methamphetamine. My own hometown, Westport, the locals affectionately call “Methport”. And that’s not an unfamiliar story.

What actually happened in New Zealand? New Zealand had a heroin problem in the 1970s. The Mr Asia syndicate—some of you may have heard of it—was decimated, so was the heroin supply. So we didn’t have a white-powder problem in New Zealand till the early 1980s, or really late 1980s, early 1990s, when the biker gangs—Hells Angels in New Zealand—sat at the top table in the United States; they started bringing the expertise in for this P. I was an undercover police officer, and, in the early days, it was only really speed—it was the biker gangs that used these things; it wasn’t something that was widely used.

The difference with methamphetamine and P from every other drug is that it is made up of legal substances that ultimately become illegal when they’re put together. And the commodity was the expertise—the meth cooks, or the chemists, who could make the P. Of course, getting hold of those raw ingredients, the core products, the precursors of methamphetamine—or pseudoephedrine—was the most important factor.

Now, that brought about a big change in the crime scene in New Zealand because the people who were out doing the shopping for the pills, the pill shoppers, were largely Māori from the ethnic gangs, or from the Polynesian gangs—they then provided this to the biker gangs. So you then had an amalgam: our crime groups that previously had always been at odds—violent odds, often—then came together. So you actually had the basis of an industry based on pseudoephedrine and other legal substances, things like red phosphorus and acetone—again, all these things were legal.

So we then came into the mid-2000s, and I was president of the Police Association at the time—as Ms Costello will know, she was my deputy at the time—and actually police officers were coming to us and telling us there’s been a massive change in the crime scene. The dog handlers were saying, “All of a sudden, criminals are behaving very differently.” And that was where we had a bit of a policy failure by both parties, actually, because we were still looking at a problem we had with heroin that hadn’t been a problem for about 10 years.

Anyway, by the time we did actually make this substance illegal and it was difficult to get from the pharmacies, it was actually too late. And, yeah, the Minister was actually right in that, actually, we do now have a situation where most of our product does emanate either in Europe or in Mexico or in Asia. However, if we now legalise this substance, make it available again, we have to be very careful—we are playing with a very dangerous thing.

Now, I’m pleased to see it’s going to go through select committee, I think most parties are agreeing with that, but I just hope there’s some really informed debate there and we understand what we’re playing with with this, because it is potentially very dangerous—it is very dangerous. We could very well get back to the situation again where people who can’t afford P—and despite the fact we are awash with the stuff, it is actually relatively expensive still, and if it becomes a cheap option to go and get hold of your pseudoephedrine to make this product again locally, we will actually have the cycle starting again. So it’s good that it’s going to select committee, but be very, very wary of this product that we’re dealing with. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s good to see that this is going through select committee. But, I guess, a point of interest from the Hon Ayesha Verrall is where she talked about how it would be good to see what pharmacists think. I had the opportunity to talk to a pharmacist just today, saying, “Potentially, you’re going to have the opportunity to sell more pseudoephedrine-based products next year.”, and she said, “Finally something that works.” So that was an interesting point of phrase.

I don’t know about you, Mr Speaker, but when I think about something that I want to decongest nasal congestion, I often think, “Gosh, I wish I had a non-prescription, pseudoephedrine-based vasoconstrictive bronchodilator.”, and, potentially, with this good legislation, this will flow through, so I look forward to seeing that. Of course, this is about choice for New Zealanders. Some New Zealanders, when they’re cold and stuffy, they want a greater option than just Tixylix. So I recommend this bill to the House.

The question is, That the

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Health Committee.

Instruction to Health Committee