Misuse of Drugs (Pseudoephedrine) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Misuse of Drugs (Pseudoephedrine) Amendment 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 which 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.

I would like to briefly comment on the intended timing of this return period. I’m aware, as I’m sure you are, Mr Speaker, that the scope of such a debate is extremely limited. It cannot traverse the content of this bill nor any other possible policy initiatives. It is simply a debate about the reporting date from the select committee. In this particular instance, I’m asking for the House to instruct the select committee to report back in four weeks’ time. The reason for that is to balance two competing objectives. One is that we hope that if the Government can put in place its regulations, if Medsafe can process approvals or provisional approvals for particular products, then all that stands in the way of the pseudoephedrine-based medication being available this winter will be the Parliament passing this law. A six-month select committee period as is normal would, of course, mean that we missed the winter for the use of pseudoephedrine-based products, so that is the public interest in having a shortened select committee process.

However, of course that also means that there will be less time for the public to submit and less time for the Health Committee to consider any submissions that they receive. Now, I’m very grateful, in advance, for their work on this, but I think it’s also important to be realistic. This piece of legislation is about two pages in its substance. It, basically, says that we are moving the word “pseudoephedrine” from the section of class B drugs to the section of class C drugs. I mean, that’s all we’re doing, and I think some people might argue that a month to debate whether or not it’s worthwhile to move a word from one page of a piece of law to another is perfectly adequate.

On the other hand, I think it’s important that people have the opportunity to come forward, because the purpose of a select committee hearing, in my humble opinion, is to inform the Parliament with information that parliamentarians might not have already had, despite the considerable consultation that’s already been done by the Ministry of Health. I’ve spoken to the Pharmacy Guild; a number of pharmaceutical companies; there’s been consultation with the police—there’s been a considerable consultation over the past several months already, but you just don’t know what might come to Parliament that didn’t come through the process of a Minister like me making the policy and getting the legislation drafted. So we are striking a balance between the best of all worlds.

It’s a very simple bill. The implications of it are not particularly wide. I remind you that we’ve had this law in the past; as recently as 2011, what we’re proposing was the law. It is the law in the four other Five Eyes countries, and many others around the world. So the complexity is not great. I think a month is a good length of time to give people the opportunity to come along and say, “Hey, we haven’t thought about this thing.” It could be very valuable. On the other hand, the simplicity of the bill does not justify a longer period; or the complexity of the bill, such as it is, does not justify a longer period.

We hope that if the pharmaceutical companies get their orders in and get their applications to Medsafe done in time, then New Zealanders may be able to enjoy the benefits of the legislation when they need it most this winter. There’s a public benefit on the shortening and I think there’s an adequate enough time for the consideration, and, on that basis, I ask that the House endorse a one-month report-back time for this piece of legislation.

I thank the Minister for that contribution, and I hope it’s clear to the Minister, through our earlier contributions on the bill, that the Labour Party respects the effort that is being made here to improve access to a health treatment and the initiatives that the Minister has taken. However, it is our view that only four weeks at select committee is too short. There have been very valid concerns raised about the impact of pseudoephedrine as a potential source of meth on the community by some of my colleagues here in the preceding debate, and also that was obviously a concern to some of the members of the Government in the past.

That does matter, and it is a matter such that we should approach that judiciously and deliberate on that properly. Four weeks only leaves people who are expert in this, who work in communities, who work in pharmacy—it only leaves them a week or two to put in their submission, if that. I put it to you that that is too short.

I think it is incorrect to say it is a matter of debating a couple of pages on a bill for one month—that is not what the committee will be doing. The Health Committee is a very busy committee, with a big annual review of Te Whatu Ora kicking off tomorrow, but the issue is that the community will not have time to make the submissions they need to make.

I noted the Minister’s point about winter. That is a very valid concern, and, as it happens, my first contribution as a Minister in this House was the retrospective amendment to the Medicines Act required to approve the COVID vaccine, where we had to enable legislation to enable the COVID vaccine roll-out. We did that under urgency. I believe the justification for that was appropriate because we had an illness that would kill potentially thousands of people. We know the vaccination programme saved tens of thousands of lives. We had an imminent threat with COVID circulating all around the world.

In this situation, the measure that’s being proposed is to prevent a sniffle. These are vastly different in terms of the justification for using expedited processes. You cannot compare the need for vaccine access passed under urgency to something which is a treatment for a mild symptom. We respect what is trying to be done here, but there are serious consequences from changing this law and we think the public deserve a right to have their say.

E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Look, I hear the Minister’s desire, being really, really keen to limit the application of logic and evidence and consistency when it comes to this bill or to the Misuse of Drugs Act or drug policy as a whole. But perhaps my proposal to the Minister would be that if his intention is to pass this through as quickly as possible, given that it’s something that the ACT Party, for example, campaigned on, there is actually an opportunity to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act as a whole.

As I outlined intentionally in my first reading speech with regard to the mechanism that requires us to have an amendment bill here and not just an Order in Council, as is the case for an introduction of a new classification, there is the opportunity for the Minister to bring in a bill that, for example, amended that inconsistency, which would require that an Order in Council is all that would be required for that down-classification or that declassification. But, as the case stands, it is that we require an amendment bill in order to introduce a substance, or rather we require an amendment bill to down-classify or declassify a substance, whereas to increase penalties associated with any given substance, it simply requires the waving through of that Order in Council.

So my proposal to the Minister would be that if his intention is just simply to wave this through and to shorten the public scrutiny on that, then there’s an opportunity to amend the primary legislation such that we have that greater consistency between down-classification—

💬 Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m sorry, but the rules are so clear. Every Speaker has upheld them. Every member has followed them. It’s not a question of what the content of the bill should be. It is simply a question of: is the reporting date appropriate for the bill that the House has just agreed to? Can you please uphold that Standing Order.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker. My point is precisely about the reason that we are having this amendment bill, and the reason that we are having this truncated select committee process is because, ultimately, the point is that there are different processes that are afforded under the primary legislation, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, which says that in order to introduce a new classification and, therefore, penalties—criminal penalties; serious criminal penalties—we just need to wave an Order in Council through this House, whereas in order to down-classify or to declassify, we need an entire amendment bill. So, therefore, it is, in fact, entirely relevant. So if I may continue, Mr Speaker?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): You may continue.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: The Greens oppose this referral motion because, as I have just alluded to, we have deep logical inconsistency here. In fact, what we’d like to see, therefore, is far greater public scrutiny because there is a point about the need for logical and evidential consistency when it comes to the application of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. So, in summation, the Greens support the proposal from the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall for an extended select committee process of two months, which would still enable this legislation to go through before we get to winter.

Ā, tēnā koe. We’d like to speak to the referral as well and support our esteemed colleagues and refer to the fact that a month is going to be way too short. We respect the view that there does need to be consideration to the weather, but what we are concerned about is the scale of the communities who are affected by meth, the ability to mobilise and be able—and I am referring from stats, and if we look at it from the Māori community’s perspective, they do need to be able to have a good ability to talk, to be able to come and submit and to be able to make sure that they take the most of this opportunity for the Minister and the Government to hear their concerns.

Again, I reiterate, I understand the concerns about keeping people well during the cold season, winter season, but there is no imminent solution to address the outstanding problem that we have in our communities with meth. We do require that there is a longer period of time for the select committee to receive this and ensure that the public, particularly Māori communities, get the valuable time that they need to be able to prepare the information and to prepare the stats—also, the medical fraternity, those pharmacists who are concerned with this, as we’ve seen and we’ve all been lobbied for. So we don’t support the Minister’s referral to select committee. We would implore that there’s a longer period of time for select committee. Kia ora.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I’ve tabled an amendment to the motion, to delay the report back to the House by one month, to 14 April. The reason is that it is a proposal to the Government from the Opposition to meet us halfway here. Obviously, if there was an instruction to the committee to report back within a certain period of time, it’s not a debatable motion, because it’s broadly accepted in the Standing Orders that that is a reasonable amount of time at select committee. One month, as has been heard from the contributions from my colleagues, is considered, on this side of the House, to be too short.

I will give the Minister credit: at least he is giving us the opportunity to have a debate at select committee; that is not what we have seen, often, from this Government so far. So credit where it’s due. But one month is too short.

When the House considers the reason why this was banned in the first place, there are genuine and reasonable concerns about what is being proposed. The Labour Party is willing to support the bill to select committee; we just want the select committee to be long enough to ensure that this House gets the opportunity to hear the views, pro and against, so that we can make an informed decision at the second reading.

Surely, the Minister and the Government parties would want to take the opportunity to have as broad a consensus as possible across this House. We’ve already had the vote at the first reading, and only one political party voted against it—as is their right. That actually doesn’t happen that often. So we have an opportunity to ensure that the best possible chance to have the broadest level of support for this bill—and all we’re proposing is we delay the referral date, as proposed by the Minister in his motion, by one month. It’s still, roughly, four months shorter than what a normal select committee length of time would be anyway. So it’s not like we’re asking for much.

I get it—I really do. This is the Minister’s big thing at the moment and he wants it in place by winter. I get that. It’s popular. He’ll be the king of the chemist. Great. Good on him. But let’s be realistic. He himself has conceded that the official advice says that it probably actually won’t be in place till next year anyway. So what is the point in rushing too much? It’s a month.

One month is what we’re proposing formally on the Table—that we amend the motion and that the House and our colleagues get the best possible opportunity to give everyone—not just those who are experts in the field but everyone who has an interest in this debate—the opportunity to be able to contribute at select committee. It might be that everyone’s in favour of it. Great. But how will we know for sure if, really, in practice, there’s probably only one or two weeks, as my colleague Dr Ayesha Verrall has mentioned, to get a submission in.

So I would encourage the House to consider this amendment. It’s put down in good faith. We want to do what we can to support the Minister’s bill. It would be a shame, I think, if that opportunity was dismissed.