Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) : I move, That the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Health Committee and that the committee presents its report to the House on or before 15 November 2007.

Benzylpiperazine (BZP) and related party pills were first introduced to New Zealand under the guise of dietary supplements and were marketed as herbal, suggesting not only that they were safe but also that they were in some way or another good for one. We now know that BZP has adverse side effects and the potential for severe toxicity in some individuals. BZP is a synthetic stimulant, similar in its action to amphetamine, and about a tenth as potent. Other psychoactive phenylpiperazines, such as trifluoromethylphenylpiperazine—otherwise known as TFMPP—are also used in party pills.

In 2005 we knew enough to exercise some caution over these drugs. This House passed an amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act then that made it an offence to supply BZP to anyone under 18. It also banned give-aways and advertising of the drug. That amendment helped to put in place some control while we found out more about the potential harm. We have a strong process in this country for looking at the harm caused by drugs. We have an Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs. It is not the Minister alone, nor any other layperson, who looks at the research and assesses the facts.

In November last year the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs advised me that the research on BZP and related drugs, which this Government had commissioned at its request, was now in. They pose a moderate risk of harm. The committee’s advice was straightforward—the drug should be classified as C1. A Minister in charge of the Government’s drug policy would have to have extraordinarily good reasons not to accept a recommendation from this committee.

When the research tells us that this drug poses a moderate risk of harm, what do we do with that information? We could sit around and do nothing, in which case when the inevitable happens and someone taking them becomes seriously ill or dies, we have the responsibility for that on our hands. We could decide that our own judgement about the safety of drugs, or this particular drug, is better than that of the expert committee, in which case we might as well get rid of the committee altogether and make law by prejudice or knee-jerk reaction. Or we could take the information seriously, in which case if we are told something is harmful we can act to reduce the harm.

So when I received the advice from the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs that this drug should be classified C1, I initiated, as I was required to do under the law, a 3-month period of public consultation. I looked carefully at the submissions that came in after that period of consultation and at further advice from health and other officials. That process confirmed my belief that the advice from the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs was correct. These drugs should be classified C1—that is, the same classification as cannabis. The penalties for importing, manufacturing, and supplying the drug are tough—up to 8 years in jail. Anyone caught possessing class C1 drugs can go to jail for 3 months or be fined up to $500.

This bill proposes that if someone is caught with more than 5 grams, which is the equivalent of 100 BZP pills, that person can be presumed to be possessing for supply. This presumption level was advised by the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs after an assessment of other drug presumption levels in the Act, and it is this issue that has lead the Attorney-General to warn the House that this bill “appears to be inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act, and that inconsistency cannot be justified under section 5 of that Act.” Such a warning requires the House to think carefully, which I am sure it will do on all sides.

In my view, the entire purpose of this bill is to better protect the rights of people, particularly young New Zealanders. As a House of Representatives, we must weigh up the presumption of innocence against the right to protection from illegal drugs and the practicalities of law enforcement. There are many, many examples where that balance is weighed and different results are reached, and every single example is based on careful consideration. So it will be for this proposal by this Parliament. In putting forward this bill, I have asked for, and am acting on, expert advice from respected scientists and clinicians, and I expect the House to consider their views very carefully indeed. That advice includes the exact amount in respect of which one would be demonstrably justified, to quote the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, in assuming was for supply, rather than for personal use. The argument simply is that law enforcement is impractical without such assumptions. On that precise limit, as on all aspects of the bill, I look forward to the select committee process and its advice back to the House.

I think that we can work through any concerns about the burden of proof about personal use and supply and the presumptions of innocence so that we do not, in spirit or letter, breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act protections. On the contrary, as indicated, I believe we will be enhancing human rights, and indeed it is our responsibility to do so for young people in this country in particular. But in protecting the young from drugs of this kind, there is a need to be judicious when making an offence out of possessing something that was previously lawful.

Good lawmaking requires time for users to find out about the change in legal status, so this bill includes a 6-month amnesty before penalties for possession for personal use will be applied. Once this amnesty expires, those found in possession of under 5 grams of BZP or under 100 tablets containing BZP for personal use will be liable to a penalty of up to 3 months’ imprisonment, a $500 fine, or both. There will, however, be no such amnesty for those who manufacture, supply, or sell BZP-based products.

The bill as drafted has a commencement date of 18 December. This means the amnesty for personal possession will be up to 17 June 2008 if the bill is passed by 18 December this year. This Parliament should, in my submission to it, vote in favour of classifying these psychoactive substances because the potential for serious side effects, and even fatalities, is associated with their use. Public safety must always be of prime importance in considering these matters. I have heard critics claim that BZP is no worse than caffeine, and I have heard them claim that I am some kind of killjoy who simply wants to end their fun. But the expert advice is very clear. BZP is, at the very least, a moderate threat to the health and well-being of those using it.

Hone Harawira: But cigarettes aren’t?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: Seizures have been reported—the member over there might be having one now. There is a potential for severe toxicity in some individuals, which has been reported via research, after relatively low doses, and that does not sound much like joy to me. Sooner or later, while BZP is still supplied to the public, we will not be talking about killing joy; we will be talking about the drug killing a young person. We must take a precautionary approach. We have enough harmful legal drugs to control by regulation already. Tobacco and alcohol cause far more harm than any other drugs in New Zealand, of course. They cost billions of dollars a year in economic damage and the social costs are incalculable—and they are legal. They are legal substances. Why add another one? If we make harmful stuff lawful, harm will result. That is the hard lesson of history.

Hone Harawira: Get rid of the other two, then!

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I say to that member if he wants to promote bills in this House to ban alcohol and ban tobacco, he can be my guest. On my wall I have a little saying that says: “Impossible things we do daily. Miracles take a bit longer.” But if the member is after miracles, let him have a go. This bill will remove at least one potential source of harm, and for that reason, I commend the bill to the House.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) : I rise to support the first reading of the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill. I am happy to also be known as a killjoy, if that is what it takes.

The regulation or banning of benzylpiperazine (BZP) or party pills has been a huge issue in New Zealand over the past few years, with heated debate, much of it driven by self-interest. The party pill industry is, after all, an industry worth approximately $35 million in the previous year. To me, there are two major aspects to this debate and why I support the classification of BZP and related substances from a class D restricted drug to a class C1. The two major aspects of this debate are the medical effects of BZP and the social consequences of continuing to allow BZP to be sold legally in New Zealand.

Arguments around the medical effects of BZP include: “Well, nobody has ever died, so they’re OK.” That type of argument comes from some quarters—mostly from those who have made millions of dollars supplying, promoting, manufacturing, and selling BZP. Other arguments market BZP as being herbal and therefore good for people. I fail to understand how BZP, which was used in the 1970s as the major component in cattle drench, can be regarded as being herbal or safe, when veterinarians discovered that BZP formed lesions on cattle when it was used as cattle drench and was therefore withdrawn from use.

In support of a ban on BZP, I offer the following evidence: BZP, and trifluoromethylphenylpiperazine (TFMPP), and related substances are mixed specifically to mimic the effects of P. The most common symptoms of those scared young people turning up at emergency rooms around New Zealand hospitals over the last few years are anxiety, palpitations, nausea, vomiting, and confusion. Interestingly, the National Poisons Centre reports that a number of young children—some as young as 18 months; as in babies—have got into trouble taking BZP. A number of young people have suffered toxic convulsions, which have resulted in several young people being put on life-support—one of them suffering multiple organ failure. A young man died recently in Nelson as a result of a vehicle accident last month. Alcohol and BZP were found in his blood.

The side effects of taking BZP are variable and unpredictable, particularly when those party pills are taken together with alcohol, which is very common. Interestingly, when I was in Nelson recently I visited several shops selling party pills. Neither of the shop assistants working in those party pill shops touched BZP. They could not understand why people would want to buy them. The medical effects of long-term use of BZP are unknown. We just do not know yet. Maybe we will know in 20 years’ time. We do not know yet what medical consequences there may or may not be through the use of BZP. We just do not know.

I turn to the social effects of BZP. Arguments for deregulation and for BZP to be freely available include: “I can put what I like in my own body.” Yes, that is fine. But what happens when things go wrong? Who picks up the pieces? I know; it is the medical system that picks up the pieces for people’s so-called choices over their own body. Or there is the argument that BZP provides a safer alternative to P. What a joke! No one has actually established BZP to be safe. There is no evidence to show that the millions of BZP pills taken have reduced the use of P. In fact, the opposite is true, with the use of pure amphetamine growing in New Zealand. We know that, because of the huge increase in P laboratory busts by the police. The argument that the use of P has reduced is totally ridiculous and untrue.

The evidence shows that the use of BZP pills has a gateway effect into the use of other drugs. BZP pills are also known as starter drugs or trainer drugs, with their colourful cartoon marketing designed specifically to target an audience younger than 18 years. I suggest that the marketing around BZP pills is targeted to appeal to those kids of 11 to 12 years of age. That is the real danger of party pills. That is why party pills should be banned. We currently have a legal drug culture in New Zealand where any 10-year-old, 8-year-old, or 5-year-old can walk into the corner dairy and see party pills displayed on the shelf next to jelly beans.

I received a phone call from a drug counsellor about an 11-year-old kid in troubled circumstances—a kid in trouble—who was taking BZP. Why? He wanted to “get out of his life”. We have a culture where a patient with a mental illness goes off his or her prescribed pills and self-medicates with BZP. Why? Those people say BZP makes them feel good—much better than their normal pills do. That is a danger. We have a culture where a secondary school teacher in a small town in New Zealand says that he sometimes does not bother teaching National Certificate of Educational Achievement subjects on a Monday morning because some of his senior students are sitting there with a blank stare, 48 hours after taking BZP on the Saturday night. We have a culture where the manager of a party pill shop has been convicted of the possession of cannabis. And we have a culture where paraphernalia like pipes for smoking P is sold in cabinets alongside party pills. Please do not tell me there is not a connection between party pill shops and the illicit drug culture.

I was standing outside a Queenstown supermarket early last year collecting signatures for my party pills petition. A young American guy who was a visitor to New Zealand—a hip, skiing character—came up to me and said that he could not believe what we are doing in New Zealand. He could not believe that we can buy these pills legally. He could not believe that we have a legal drug culture in New Zealand. When a substance is legal, we are saying that it is safe and that it is OK. That is a very dangerous message. It is argued that if we ban BZP pills, then kids will source them from illegal operations. The truth is that, yes, there are some kids who will. And there will always be people willing to sell them. But by having party pill shops in major shopping malls or on the main streets of small towns we are, in effect, placing a candy shop in front of young kids and expecting them to make good decisions.

This bill should have been before the House 2 years ago. The research commissioned by the Minister Jim Anderton is useful but confirms what the medical practitioners, social workers, police, clergy, youth workers, and parents could see for themselves: that the sale of party pills in New Zealand towns and cities has normalised drug taking. The longer the Minister has held out, waiting for an evidence base, the more firmly this pill-popping drug culture has become established in New Zealand. I regret that. Thank you.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction) : I rise to support the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill. I will make one comment about the speech made by the member who has just resumed her seat. Up until the last couple of paragraphs of political posturing, I agreed with many of Jacqui Dean’s sentiments, but she somehow decried Mr Anderton for engaging in an approach that is logical and has been around for many years.

I am a member of the Ministerial Committee on Drug Policy, along with Mr Anderton, and, as I said, the approach is logical and has been around for many years. The process is to engage medical practitioners and scientists and put the issue before them. The approach is not to put one’s finger in the air—even though we might all agree that the stuff should be banned; I certainly do—and say that this is what we should do but we are not basing it on logical, scientific fact or anything. There are one or two medical practitioners on the other side of the aisle who, I suspect—although they may not get up and say so—may well agree with me, because, of course, they have medical qualifications. They have studied medicine based on scientific fact and evidenced-based medicine. But to put forward in this House the point that Mr Anderton and the Government have somehow sat on their hands for 2 years and done nothing about this is grotesque. It is about as grotesque as Matt Bowden, the so-called head of Social Tonics Association of New Zealand, who parades around, with credibility akin to that member’s, saying that he is socially responsible. The facts are that this is a serious issue.

Mr Anderton did exactly the right thing. We have an Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs, and he put this matter before the committee. He asked the medical experts—which Mr Anderton is not, and which I am not, and which the member who has just spoken is not. He asked the medical experts to verify what, indeed, most of us, apart from one or two of us in the House, thought already—that this stuff is bad and should be banned. But it is appropriate that we go through a logical process so that we can go out with confidence to communities and say that those professionals—those medical practitioners, those who are qualified in science and medicine—agree with us that these substances should be banned. So apart from the political posturing and the point scoring, this is a serious issue, and I congratulate Mr Anderton.

I want to point to a very community-based example of courageousness. I congratulate the woman, unnamed, in my electorate of Waimakariri who came to me, before the election, when the Herbal Heaven shop was set up in Kaiapoi. Before Jacqui Dean was a twinkle in the eye of this Parliament, that courageous woman set up her own petition. She would not be named. Why? Because she knew people who were selling these substances, she knew people who were on these substances, and she feared retribution from some of the people involved in this industry. She came to me, she gave us that petition, and she showed a ton of guts.

Today, the thanks for those examples of courageousness should go not to politicians posturing and making themselves into heroes but to members of the community—the mums, dads, and grandparents in Kaiapoi, for instance. Within days of that shop being set up they convened a meeting with police, drug experts, and the principal of the local high school, because they were so concerned about what it would do to their kids. These people were not prudes or killjoys; they were parents—ordinary folk—who feared what this would do to their kids. They worked out the marketing principles of Mr Matt Bowden’s Social Tonics Association in about 1 minute, and that was the development of a pill targeted at kids—not a pill for young adults acting illegally and popping an Ecstasy tablet or whatever in the pub in their 20s but a pill for kids.

I want to pay tribute to an eminent physician in my patch, Dr Paul Gee. He does not posture and he does not score political points. He works in the emergency department of Christchurch Hospital. He is not here to speak for himself, but he spoke for himself when he did a number of studies and conducted some research. This is a chap who sees the gurneys and the stretchers come in and out. He has to deal with the issues. He has to deal with the kids and the mums and dads. The research that he has done into the effects of benzylpiperazine (BZP) is based on first-hand experience.

Dr Gee’s research showed that between 1 April 2005 and 1 September 2005—a 5-month period—61 patients presented on 80 occasions at the accident and emergency department in Christchurch. Those patients were experiencing a number of the symptoms the member alluded to but, interestingly, 15 toxic seizures were recorded and two patients suffered life-threatening toxicity. His findings state: “The results of this study indicate that BZP can cause unpredictable and serious toxicity in some individuals. BZP is currently a legal stimulant in New Zealand and this status makes it available and attractive to a far wider market of users than if it were illicit.” I quote again: “Moreover, it has propagated a culture of accepting pill use as normal behaviour at parties. These factors should be carefully weighed up in any consideration of the legal status of BZP.”

Nandor Tanczos: Is he a doctor?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I say to Mr Tanczos that, yes, he is a doctor, unlike that member, who condones cannabis use and who, I believe, held shares in some of these shops, or a shop, or whatever. That member sits there and grins intently because his logic around drugs is: “Hey, let her go. Anything goes; she’ll be right.” Well, yes, Dr Gee is a doctor. He is qualified, unlike that member, and unlike Matt Bowden, the chairman of the Social Tonics Association. It was found out, in the New Zealand Herald, that Mr Bowden had been trialling another version of the party pill to mimic Ecstasy. What a wonderful objective that is—get a synthetic party pill that mimics Ecstasy, with all the tragedies and ramifications around that! Is Mr Bowden a doctor? Is Mr Bowden, the godfather of the industry—an industry worth 35 million bucks a year—motivated by social responsibility? Not when he is making 35 million bucks a year. So I ask that member when he was last in an accident and emergency department watching the stretchers come in. When was the last time he spoke to parents as their children suffered a toxic shock? When was the last time he witnessed that? Oh no! Anything goes with that member.

A Massey University study on legal party pill use in New Zealand showed that, contrary to popular belief, party pill users are much more likely to be using illicit drugs than the general population. One in seven of those surveyed who had a history of party pill and illegal drug use admitted they moved on to mainly illegal drugs after starting out with party pills. But, of course, the supporters of the party pill industry have the macabre view that if pills mimicking Ecstasy—that is, illicit drugs, or BZP, which was used as a cattle drench until they found out it was too tough for cattle—are put on the market, that in some way will stop young people from moving on to harder drug substances. Well, I have to say that I have not used illicit drugs. People may call me a prude—I know one or two people do—but where is the logic in that? I cannot see it. Maybe I am wrong. But I know that the mums and dads around the show and around the communities instinctively knew, before any of the pontificating came out of the industry, that this was wrong—fundamentally wrong.

I commend Mr Anderton, as well. I commend him for his proposal, which is logical, that if one wants to produce it, then it should be incumbent on the producer to prove that it is safe, and it should not be incumbent upon the Crown to prove that it is a dangerous substance. I just say that it is one of those line-in-the-sand issues, and it will be an interesting debate, because the previous member was right in saying that the medical community is stacked up on the side of this debate that says “Get rid of it.” The communities are stacked up on the side of the debate that says “Get rid of it.” The only argument against that is that we already have bad drugs on the market—booze and cigarettes. We are guilty; I agree with that. But that does not mean that we open the door and say: “Anything goes.”, which is the modus operandi of that member over there.

I say to Mr Harawira that he knows about the carnage and destruction that current alcohol abuse and substance abuse has caused within Māoridom and within Pākehā communities. If that is the case, surely logic will prevail and we will stop another substance from coming on to the market. Or have we learnt nothing? One has to look at Mr Bowden and the objective he portrays—he is a very slick guy, wears a suit, good haircut—which is social responsibility and regulation. Well, that objective is about $35 million, and that is about commerce, and that is where Mr Bowden’s moral fibre sits.

ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) : I intend to take a brief call on the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill as well. To respond to the comments of the previous speaker, much of what he said I agree with, but I say, having read this bill—which is having its first reading today—that there is not one clause or element of it that would have taken 2 years to compile. This is an issue that needed to be dealt with before the use of benzylpiperazine (BZP) became as endemic as it is. So I say, as Jacqui Dean said, that this bill has been too long coming.

Firstly, I want to say a little bit about the culture of New Zealand and drug taking. I lament the fact that we have a generation of young people today who actually need these stimulants and means of escapism before they can enjoy themselves. Never in the history of entertainment has so much been available apart from drugs, yet we have an increasing use of drugs and a hedonistic society. At some stage this Parliament needs to look at the root cause of why so many of our young people have become hedonistic and have become so much in need of the means of escapism that are out there.

That raises a second point. Quite often when we get into these debates about drug use the argument is raised that drugs are not as bad as alcohol or nicotine. That is not the question that we need to face. The question is: how many means of escapism, how many stimulants, do we need to sanction for use in New Zealand? I say that there comes a time when we put a line in the sand and say: “We’ve got enough stimulants out there now. Let’s look at some of the reasons why our young people need to lapse into these.”

The third point is simply that the question then arises as to what the impact is when we ban a substance that currently has a legal status. Well, there are plenty of examples where that has happened. There are a number of examples around the world where other countries have already banned BZP and a number of other drugs that are legal in New Zealand. There is the example in the United States where 13 states after decriminalising marijuana recriminalised it again—13 states did that. It is not new territory to say to the community out there: “We’ve had a look at this. It’s not appropriate. We’re now going to make illegal a substance that was legal.” That has happened in other places in the world and we need not be fearful if we take a step to put some classifications around a drug like BZP, which I would say really has no place in New Zealand society, or at least needs to be severely regulated.

I guess that having this first reading will take this bill to the select committee where we will find out the best way forward to deal with this drug. We have a drug out there now that is legalised but that has no regulations around its strength. There are no regulations, recommendations, or limitations on how much individuals may consume. We have no real testing process to say how much is in anybody’s system. Those things are significantly important. In my office in Invercargill I have within 50 metres either side of me two outlets that sell energy pills, or party pills—or whatever one wants to call them. At any time of the day I see a stream of young people going in to purchase these drugs. I have watched them. They are in work clothes. They are actually consuming these pills as soon as they get in their car, as they drive around in their lunchtime—and head back to their workplaces, I presume. So we do have an issue and we need to deal with it.

I recommend that Parliament supports this bill through to the select committee, so we can hear what the community at large says. At least—at the very minimum—we need to do some serious regulating of the use of BZP.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) : New Zealand First supports this Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill. We are very pleased in New Zealand First to see this bill appear. This is a serious issue for young people, and it is a very serious issue for their parents, particularly when we hear that some of the adverse effects of benzylpiperazine (BZP) can continue for up to 24 hours after the pills have been consumed. In New Zealand First we have had concerns, and we believe that a precautionary approach should be taken rather than to jump in and test the water with both feet. We know that BZP was developed as a cattle drench during the 1950s. It was not even considered effective then, as the side effects were not positive for cattle, and its use was discontinued.

I remind the House that the last time a bill amending the Misuse of Drugs Act came before Parliament, New Zealand First put forward a Supplementary Order Paper to ban BZP. We believed that there was a total lack of research on the long-term effects of this particular substance, and we do not like to test the water with both feet. The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs was at this time reviewing the guidelines for the use of BZP, but every party in this House voted against New Zealand First’s Supplementary Order Paper to ban it. We believed at the time that this was a very liberal stance for Parliament to take, considering that we were reading many newspaper reports about cases being looked at in Christchurch Hospital of bad reactions from exposure to this particular drug. So we are very pleased to see this matter back before the House.

We have concerns about the proliferation of party pills here in New Zealand. We have concerns about the safety of party pills. We need to be aware that they are not guaranteed to be absolutely harmless. They have not been around long enough to have the research carried out to guarantee that. We do not like to see these experiments taking place on the young people of New Zealand, who are very willing to be experimented upon. Young people should not be treated like rats in a laboratory. We saw the bad effects of what happened over in Britain recently when young people had drugs tested on them. In reality we have to acknowledge the efforts of the Social Tonics Association to regulate aspects of the manufacture of BZP to try to limit the amount of BZP in each tablet, to place some additional warnings on these highly coloured packets, and to restrict the sales to those aged over 18. I note that these controls, too, were put in place partially with the Misuse of Drugs Act.

I think we have to be very aware that people—manufacturers of these party pills and young people—are very willing to experiment. They are not risk-averse. They drink alcohol and they pop the party pills, and it becomes a very serious issue when these two substances are used together. We know that it is very difficult for people to follow the instructions of their doctors and their pharmacists when they are taking prescription drugs, so it is no wonder that our young people do not take any notice of the instructions that are on the packets of these party pills.

We need to be mindful, too, that BZP has been outlawed in Australia, the US, and parts of Europe. It is very obvious that this issue has been very carefully considered in these particular countries, so we believe that it is very timely to reconsider our stance here in New Zealand. We are only too aware that the research is not available on the effects of long-term use of BZP. We have heard from many other speakers how unpredictable the effects from party pills are. We believe that, really, a precautionary approach should always be taken on these particular matters. We know from Matt Bowden that other drugs are currently being manufactured to mimic the effects of party pills—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: By him!

BARBARA STEWART: They are being manufactured by him—Matt Bowden. We will be very interested to ensure that the legislation is flexible enough to take account of some of these other substances that Matt Bowden wants to make available to our young people. Unfortunately, young people are very willing to consume these pills.

New Zealand First will be very interested to hear from submitters and to work on this legislation during the select committee process. We are very happy to support this legislation to the select committee.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) : Kia ora, Madam Assistant Speaker. I had better start off by saying that the Māori Party will support this Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill going forward to a select committee, but I have to say that I am just absolutely amazed at the hypocrisy of the people in this place, the alcoholics and the—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): No, I am sorry, the member cannot use that term in relation to members.

HONE HARAWIRA: Which term can I not use?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): The member knows that he cannot use—

HONE HARAWIRA: Cannot use what?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Please be seated.

HONE HARAWIRA: Cannot use “hypocrisy”?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Please be seated. The member knows very well that he cannot use that term. The member will withdraw and apologise.

HONE HARAWIRA:I withdraw and apologise.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley): Thank you.

HONE HARAWIRA: I struggle to understand how this House can talk about the problems of benzylpiperazine (BZP) when there is clearly no research on the long-term effects of BZP on the population but there is truckloads of research on the long-term adverse effects of alcohol and cigarettes. Here we are pontificating and prattling on about BZP, and we do not have the courage to do anything about alcohol. I know how many people die every year from cigarettes—more than 4,000 New Zealanders—and here we are talking about the possibility that at some point in the future somebody may die from BZP. We know for a fact how many New Zealanders die every single year from cigarettes—we know that for a fact; it is 4,500—and what is the difference? Is it because we are getting a billion dollars in tax? Is that the reason why we are not going to do anything about cigarettes?

We know that alcohol probably kills more and we do nothing about that. We sit in here and say “We’ve got a couple of legal drugs. We’ve got cigarettes and alcohol and we know what damage they are doing to our society, but we are going to crush BZP” I struggle to understand where on earth we get the ethics that enable us to go bang, bang, bang on BZP. I apologise, I am not quite like everybody else: I do not drink alcohol, I do not do drugs, and I do not smoke cigarettes, so I am obviously not like a whole lot of the others in this House. One of the reasons I do not do a lot of that stuff is that I cannot go around talking to rangatahi about problems that are caused by these kinds of substances and be an alcoholic on the side. Kids pick up on that pretty quickly.

That is why I admire the stance that Nandor takes, because at least when he is talking to people about drugs, he believes in what he is talking about. I do not personally believe in them, but that is my position. My position is that if we are going to do it to one substance, let us do it to the lot. Let us have the courage to say to one another, “Yes, BZP may be a problem”—in fact there is no research to prove that there is, certainly no long-term research, because it has not been around long enough—“but there is long-term research to prove that cigarettes and alcohol are killing people.”

I heard one of the previous speakers talk about how we do not want to use our kids as experimental rats in a laboratory. Yet we allow the alcohol companies to sell these little bottles of alcopop. I heard another speaker talk about all of these colourful and cartoon-type wrappings. That is exactly what alcopop is all about—those little six-packs that can be bought of that slightly pop soda kind of alcohol; it is just alcohol in disguise for kids. What do we do about that? We jump up and down, and we huff and we puff, and we splutter and carry on, and do nothing about it. Along comes BZP and all of a sudden out comes the big hammer. I am amazed at the “mmm”—is there a better word than that, that I can use, Madam Assistant Speaker?

The House has problems in separating out something that has just popped up. Yes, I heard the Minister prattling on and asking if he was a killjoy. Hell yes, he is a killjoy. Of course he is a killjoy. It is OK for older people—people of our age—to drink alcohol and kill people on the roads, but we dare young people to take BZP, when we do not even know if it is going to hurt them. How do we know it is going to hurt them? How do we know? No research has been done on the long-term use of BZP—I heard the Minister say so, and I have heard other speakers say so. The research is only short term because BZP has been around only a little while. But here we are, happily banging the kids on the head and trying to tell them they cannot have it, but heck, we can.

What is this when we can speak in such terms about drugs of any nature? I am really amazed. I heard the Minister talking about a moderate risk of harm—that it had been determined that BZP has a moderate risk of harm. We happen to know that alcohol has a high risk of harm and that cigarettes have a high risk of harm, and what do we do to make them illegal, apart from nothing? Yet here we are, we are banging on BZP because it has a moderate risk of harm. Of course this is killjoy legislation.

In this House we are happy to allow the high-risk-of-harm products to continue to be sold legally in this country and then we are going to come along and go smash on a product with a moderate risk of harm. No, those products are not all the same because we know that alcohol and cigarettes have a high risk of harm to any New Zealander who consumes them. We know from the Social Tonics Association, which has done the research, that BZP has a moderate risk of harm. The product we are banging on is the one with the moderate risk; the high-risk stuff gets away with everything. Everything is all lined up: fines, periodic detention, jail, and everything else. The result is that people are going to get smacked over if they do BZP but they can keep on drinking as much alcohol as they bloody like.

Nandor Tanczos: They make you a “sir”!

HONE HARAWIRA: People become knighted if they become a baron in the liquor industry. But if someone tries to do something that might introduce a moderate risk of harm, he or she will go to jail. I am sorry for getting my speech probably all back to front, but I could not just stand here and listen to all that kind of stuff that has been said. I have to say at the end of the day that if BZP had a high risk of harm, I would say yes, let us do something about it. But we are talking about banging on a moderate-risk substance and allowing two absolutely clearly high-risk-of-harm products to continue to be sold legally in this country. There is something seriously wrong with this House. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa.

NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) : First of all I want to thank Mr Harawira for that excellent speech. This bill, as the libertarians have said, is about putting the “P” into benzylpiperazine (BZP). Despite the Hon Jim Anderton’s intentions, his legacy from his years as would-be drug tsar will be the criminalisation of a huge range of New Zealanders and the boosting of the illegal drug market as a result.

About 20 percent of New Zealanders surveyed said that they have used party pills—20 percent. It is estimated that BZP has been used by over 400,000 New Zealanders. They have consumed 26 million pills, with no deaths or lasting injuries. All the available research shows that banning BZP will send many thousands of young people to the more dangerous illegal drug market of counterfeit street Ecstasy and methamphetamine.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: It’s not what the research says. It’s not what the universities say. It’s not what the doctors say.

NANDOR TANCZOS: I ask the member to wait—I will give him the answer.

People have spoken about the dangers of BZP in this debate. Interestingly, with an estimated 200,000 pills used a month, 21 patients going to the emergency departments in a year is actually a relatively small number. That will not be the case when prohibition is enacted under this bill, because many people will continue to use party pills—this Parliament seems to have difficulty understanding that people do not obey unjust or unreasonable laws—and those people will no longer be assured about what they are actually taking.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: So we should legalise everything?

NANDOR TANCZOS: I will give Mr Cosgrove the answer. He keeps interrupting, and I will give him the answer in a second. I ask him to be patient.

There will be no consumer protection and no consumer information, and consumers will be pushed into the hands of organised criminal organisations that will certainly fill the gap. Today the Government announced that it is setting up a specialised organised crime agency at the same time as it is writing a blank cheque for organised crime with this bill.

What is the heinous evil that the Government is intending to remedy by this bill? The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs has described BZP as a moderate risk. It said there is no evidence of aggressive behaviour, sexual assault, or date rape - type behaviours, and there have been no reported deaths solely as a result of BZP use.

The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs said that should BZP be made illegal, people who continue to use it may be discouraged from seeking medical attention if they experience adverse effects. Moreover, the committee said there was no guarantee that scheduling a substance as a controlled substance under the Misuse of Drugs Act reduces the availability or potential risk from a drug. I want to emphasise that last point. There is no guarantee that doing this will either reduce the availability of the drug or the harm from using it. That is what the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs said.

The point is that the legislation that empowers the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs does not, despite the attempts made by the Green Party, include as a criterion for making these kinds of recommendations, whether the harm from using a drug will be increased or decreased by the scheduling. That is the basic flaw. When the committee made this recommendation, it did not take into account whether scheduling the drug would increase or decrease harm. So what kind of recommendation will it make? It is just bizarre. [Interruption] Mrs Turner will remember that the Green Party tried to make that amendment in the Health Committee in 2005, and we were opposed by that member herself and by other members of the committee.

The New Zealand Drug Foundation, one of our most impartial and independent bodies with expertise in this area, has said that clear patterns of adverse effects are starting to emerge from the research: seizures, uncontrollable twitching, inability to sleep—of course, that is why people take it; they do not want to sleep—nausea, and vomiting. Across the population-based research and the clinical trials, adverse effects appear to be reasonably common but generally mild and short-lasting.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Rubbish!

NANDOR TANCZOS: Oh, he is the expert! A study by the Auckland City Hospital Emergency Department Overdose Database, which was published in the New Zealand Medical Journal, compared party pills with ecstasy, gamma-hydroxybutyrate, amphetamines, cocaine, and alcohol. It was found that most patients who presented with multidrug ingestions were discharged home after receiving reassurance, intravenous fluids, and diazepam—reassurance, intravenous fluids, and diazepam! I guess that is what the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs meant when it said the drug posed moderate harm.

Maybe the bill is needed in order to do something about the sellers. Well, no—the Attorney-General’s advice was that in relation to supply the bill breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. That means that the reverse onus provisions in this bill breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act guarantee that a person charged with an offence should be presumed innocent until proven guilty—a basic tenet of our law. That advice says that limitation cannot be justified in a free and democratic society, which makes one start to wonder how the Government justifies it in this country. This advice, of course, follows the Supreme Court finding in Hansen v R, which was around this very issue of the reverse onus of proof in section 6(6) of the Misuse of Drugs Act. It breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

Well, what should we do? Clearly, what is happening at the moment is not acceptable. The Green policy on this issue has been consistent for a number of years. Our policy is about reducing harm. We believe that a drug-free lifestyle is the healthiest, although I would say to Mr Cosgrove that not many members of this House enjoy a drug-free lifestyle. All drug use, regardless of legal status, can cause harm, but it is also a fact that not all drug use is problematic, and many of the Government’s policies in this area exacerbate harm rather than reduce it, and this bill is a classic example of that.

The Greens favour strict regulation of party pills, not prohibition. We favour regulations such as heavily enforced age restrictions, restrictions on where outlets can be, mandatory health information, quality and quantity controls, severe restrictions on advertising, and severe penalties for breaching such regulations. That approach would be more effective at addressing the problems raised by members in the House today than criminalising users and putting control into the hands of organised crime.

The Drug Foundation noted from the Massey University study that 26.7 percent of users under 20 had never been asked for age ID when attempting to buy pills, 80 percent of those under 20 had never been refused when trying to buy pills, and most users could get pills within 20 minutes. The 2005 Act provided for regulations on where restricted drugs under the new class D category, such as BZP currently is, could be sold, and restrictions on the dosage, the packaging, and the marketing. This is something that the Greens strongly support. In fact, we recommend it and we proposed it at the time.

The amazing thing is that those regulations have never been made, and, to the best of our knowledge, no enforcement officers have ever been appointed to police the regulations around BZP. No formal monitoring of the industry, or enforcement, has ever been carried out by this Government. No licensing or training is required before selling the product, so many dairies, off-licence premises, and garages are selling it right now. This is a major concern to public health and health sector workers, and it is a concern to us, as well. There is extensive point-of-sale advertising, but the point is that the Government, having failed to make use of any of the regulatory provisions provided to it in the 2005 Act, is now saying—surprise, surprise—that the status quo is not working and people are selling it to all and sundry under dangerous conditions. Well, that is because the Government put no regulations in place. It does not take rocket science to work this stuff out.

So instead of actually putting regulations in place, what will the Government do about party pills? It will ban them. It will criminalise 400,000 New Zealanders because it is too lazy to put regulations in place. As I said, party pills are being sold in dairies, young people are not being asked for ID, there is no enforcement, and there is no regulation to even stop this. So instead of passing a sledgehammer law that will crack not just the nut we are trying to address but break the whole table as well, why would the Government not put in place the regulations that the 2005 legislation provides for—the regulations that the industry is crying out for because it is trying to clean up the cowboys operating in the industry?

Why would the Government not do that when the evidence suggests that this kind of approach is much more likely to reduce harm from party pills as opposed to criminalising people and giving control to the black market and the organised criminal gangs? Those gangs will not be worried about age restrictions. In fact, they will not even be worried about what they put in the party pills. I say to Mr Cosgrove that when we start to see people turning up in emergency departments having taken Ajax because they thought it was a party pill, then we will start to talk about harm. This bill is not even about reducing harm, is it? It is about another agenda entirely. The Green Party opposes the bill.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) : I stand on behalf of United Future to speak to the first reading of the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill. We will support this bill going to the Health Committee, but we are hugely disappointed in the process that has led us to this point today. We take an approach in New Zealand to social stimulants that is absolutely loopy: rather than presuming risk and requiring those who wish to market new designer substances to prove their safety before allowing them loose on the market, we let the horse bolt. We have allowed millions of these party pills to be aggressively marketed for years, with our supposed experts constantly reassuring us that the risks were minimal. Now, literally years later, we see an about-face from our official experts, and a proposed legislative tightening around benzylpiperazine (BZP) and its legal status. So we have allowed a demand to grow, we have allowed a social reliance and a social expectation to be fostered, and we have allowed new social norms to be based on those products, despite the fact that anyone with half a brain could figure out that this substance would be ingested as part of a cocktail of alcohol and other social stimulants and mood enhancers.

The late introduction of this bill is a disgrace to all of those who are responsible for law and regulations on these sorts of matters. I disagree with what the member from Labour was saying: that this bill could not have happened any quicker. We should have had laws written in such a way that we started from a cautious position, then liberalised it as the facts were made known to the appropriate authorities. The fact is that those who have designed and made a veritable mint from these products were never required to submit their products for prior approval, and that is absolutely outrageous. They postured about having a voluntary code of self-regulation, but that made no impact on the quantity or quality of what was being sold, and on their website they invited young people to participate in human experimentation on product development, removing the advertisement only after public outrage was expressed. We have had doctors, parents, young people themselves, politicians, and veterinarians all asking for parliamentary action for literally years.

So what about future developments? Will new social stimulants, new mood enhancers, be allowed to flood the market while we take years to figure out that maybe they should be somewhere on a schedule? One of the previous speakers referred to alcohol and tobacco, and suggested that we are being very inconsistent in scheduling BZP. I actually agree with that, and I believe that if we had known back then what we know now about both alcohol and tobacco, then we would have an extremely different approach to regulating them. [Interruption] As the member says, that was way back. Instead we have a situation where the horse has bolted, and, knowing that politics is the art of the achievable, I do not believe that we can ever fully rein in the use of those things in the very near future. But when new products appear, let us at least have provisions in place that take a cautious response to them initially.

The Green member said that putting a substance on a schedule does not reduce its toxicity; I totally agree with that. We do not reduce the toxicity of any substance—arsenic and the like—just by listing it on a schedule. But by listing it we can send a strong signal in law that we recognise there is a degree of risk associated with it that we consider unacceptable for New Zealand citizens to take. One of the big risks that the Green Party likes to put out there regarding the control of substances like this is that people may be arrested. In fact, that is the biggest risk that those members see. But we do not use that same principle with regard to any other law. We do not say that the risk of violent offending is that people may be arrested. Well, it is the same in this case, I say to Mr Tanczos. Yes, there is a risk that people will get chafed wrists as a result of supplying young people with a substance that this society deems to be unsuitable for their consumption.

United Future is very happy to see the bill go to the select committee and to consider what submitters will have to say about it. I think there are some things to be discussed around the issue of enforcement, about the kinds of penalties that we want to see, and about the types of legal interventions we want to see taken, particularly with regard to young people where it is a first offence. I do not think there is a need for us to be heavy-handed, but rather we should take more of a diversionary approach, where we start to put people through education courses. United Future would support investigating those types of things. But finally, after all the calls that have been made on this matter, we are certainly very glad to see this bill before the House and going to a select committee. We will be supporting that.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) : It is very interesting to follow first of all Nandor Tanczos from the Green Party and then Judy Turner from the United Future party. It is interesting to compare the approaches, because within the two approaches I think we see the two extremes on this bill. I have to say that the ACT party stands firmly beside the Green Party’s position. Let me just explain what Judy Turner’s position is. She and her party declared themselves here today to be prohibitionists, because she said that if we had known then what we know now, we would have banned alcohol and tobacco. What I like about Judy Turner and United Future’s position is that they are at least consistent. She says that what we should do is ban all new things that could hurt us, and once it is assumed by the State that they are OK and Judy Turner says they are OK, then people would be allowed to use them. So in Judy Turner’s conception, there would be no alcohol, there would be no tobacco, there would probably be no sugar, there would probably be no ice cream—

Hone Harawira: No rugby.

RODNEY HIDE: —certainly no rugby, and probably not a lot of fun, because we would have the “fun police” banning anything that might have some element of risk.

R Doug Woolerton: What a load of rubbish this is!

RODNEY HIDE: I could not agree with Doug Woolerton more that this bill is a load of rubbish.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Tell that to the mums and dads.

RODNEY HIDE: Well, it is very instructive that Mr Cosgrove came down to this House and was going to solve the problem of boy racers with legislation. So we got ourselves all into a fury, and I think it was the ACT party and the Green Party that voted against that, too. We warned the Minister then that passing legislation would not deal with the problem. Let me tell Mr Cosgrove, Mr Woolerton, and the mums and dads who are listening, that we in this Parliament will not solve the drug problem. We will not solve the problem through prohibition. We will not solve the problem by passing laws.

Mr Woolerton well knows, I think, that more harm is done by alcohol and tobacco than by party pills. More harm is done, and they are sitting there, banning something because of a perceived problem and because Judy Turner says that the horse has already bolted on alcohol and tobacco.

But here is the real problem. Judy Turner went on to say that the Green Party goes on about people getting arrested, and she asked whether that was the reason we should not have laws against violence. Actually, we have laws against violence because that is an infringement of other people’s rights. But for people who are taking BZP or who are having a cigarette or drinking some alcohol, the damage they are doing is, in the main, to themselves and not to another human being, and there is a fundamental difference between the two.

Hon Member: Have a look at road deaths.

RODNEY HIDE: Well, road deaths are the same. That is why we have road rules, and that is why the ACT party supports road rules.

Here is the next point. This Government—and, indeed, the previous National Government was worse—could not keep drugs out of our jails. We have people locked up 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, under heavy surveillance, and we cannot keep the drugs out. Yet we are sitting here in Parliament passing a law as though we can somehow keep drugs out of our streets, out of our pubs, and out of our communal places.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Live and let live.

RODNEY HIDE: I think that that is not a bad place to start, I say to Mr Cosgrove. It is better than having a policy of saying we do not like it, so let us ban it and lock up anyone who disagrees with us. In fact, let us go further, I say to Mr Cosgrove, and say that if anyone even has a political disagreement with us, we should ban that person as well. We could say we will ban the party pills and we will ban political debate because they do not suit us. We could say that any people who disagree, who say that people might have some rights and responsibilities, and who say that they would rather live in a society where people had some choices apart from what the Government chooses, including the choice to make mistakes, should be banned. I am looking at Mr Woolerton. He has made a few.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Why have laws, then—why have any laws?

RODNEY HIDE: Is it not a surprising thing that I hear a Minister of the Crown calling across the House: “Why have rules?”.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Because many rules don’t stop people doing wrong, do they?

RODNEY HIDE: Let me explain to Mr Cosgrove why we have rules and why we do not legislate for everything. We have rules in order to protect people’s rights and to uphold the rights of citizens in a free State. That is why we have rules, that is why we have a State, that is why we have a court system, and that is why we have police. We do not have rules to stop people expressing their political views, to stop people taking risks, or to stop people making terribly stupid mistakes, because that is part of being an adult and a responsible human being. We cannot sit here in this House and legislate away all harm, as this Government thinks it can. We cannot actually legislate for good behaviour, but we can legislate in a way that protects people’s basic rights. I have to say that when we go beyond that, then I think this Parliament overreaches itself. It suggests, somehow, that the Government and this Parliament are the solution to problems we cannot solve.

Are we going to live in a society that says that this Parliament will decide all risk, that this Parliament will decide what is right and wrong, and that if Parliament has not banned it, it is OK to use—which is exactly what Judy Turner’s position was?

I abhor drugs, actually. I do not understand why anyone would want to take any, as I think that the most wonderful thing in the universe is the human mind because of what it can grasp, comprehend, and conceive. I do not know why anyone would want to be taking drugs and playing with it. But my mind also says to me that we are barking up the wrong tree in thinking somehow that we can pass a law and ban party pills, and that prohibition will somehow work. I find it astonishing that in the year 2007 we have, with Judy Turner, a serious political party that is saying: “Oh well, you know, if we had our time again we would ban alcohol and cigarettes, and we would ban a whole number of things; it is just that at the time we didn’t think of it.”

I have to say that that is not the sort of society I think New Zealanders want to live in. I think New Zealanders want to live in a society where they do have some freedom, that coming along with that freedom is some responsibility, and that it is not Parliament or the Government that decides how they should live, what they should take, and what risks are acceptable to them.

I look around this House and, from what I know of members, I know that we all went through a stage of being young once, of experimenting with things, and of taking risks. It is actually called growing up. But do we in this House somehow think that we can pass a law that will stop young people from experimenting and trying different things? What I truly despise about this law is that it wraps up all drugs as being the same, and I think that that is the terrible message this law is sending our young people. But the message I have for the mums and dads of New Zealand, I tell Mr Cosgrove, is that all drugs are not the same, and I fear for young people; I am afraid I know people who have had the experience where they have tried drugs this Parliament has banned, and have said: “Well, that wasn’t so bad. That didn’t kill me. What Parliament and the Government said about that drug isn’t true.”, and they have gone on to try other drugs. So I believe that we are doing a harm with this legislation—we are not doing good.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Doctors disagree with you.

RODNEY HIDE: Well, it is all right, I tell Mr Cosgrove. This is Parliament and you are allowed to disagree. It is also the case that we are also allowed to explain our view—to explain why the ACT party is opposing this bill and voting against it. Thank you.

NICKY WAGNER (National) : I rise to support the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill, and I support it because benzylpiperazine (BZP) can be a dangerous substance and it can cause real harm, particularly when used indiscriminately. But I want to make it very clear that I do not think the banning of BZP will curtail party pill use in New Zealand.

One of the things I have noticed since I came into Parliament is that we, as politicians who care about New Zealanders and who want to make a difference, are very keen to legislate. But we often seem to pass legislation that has absolutely nothing to do with the problem that has been identified. I first discovered that when we were working on the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. Everyone agreed that New Zealand had an appalling record of child abuse, and everybody wanted to protect children. Through research, we identified the causes of child abuse: poverty, stress, family breakdown, and drug and alcohol abuse. But then what did Parliament do? We passed legislation—a whole lot of rules, none of which addressed any of the identified causes of child abuse. Similarly, when Parliament identified the problem of young children being savaged by dogs, the Government passed legislation to microchip dogs. Can anyone tell me how microchipping can stop a dog biting a child. Would a muzzle not have been simpler? I feel that this legislation is in the same league as those laws.

As the National Party’s spokesperson on youth, I have spoken to many schools, many youth workers, and many parents, and they are united in their condemnation of party pills. They see them as just another hazard for young people to deal with, on top of tobacco, on top of alcohol, and on top of other drugs. They make the same point that Mr Harawira made. They want to get rid of party pills, but this legislation will not do that. It will do very little to inhibit the party pill trade. The makers—and they have told us this—will just introduce new and as yet unregulated alternative ingredients. Those new ingredients, potentially, have even higher risk profiles. Party pills are well established in New Zealand, as Mr Tanczos has told us. One in five New Zealanders have used party pills, and over 15 percent of them have used them in the last year. Two-thirds of the users are between 18 and 24 years of age, and though party pills are supposedly unavailable to young people under 18 years of age, 6.3 percent of 15 to 17-year-olds have used them. Three percent of 13 to 14-year-olds have used party pills.

So the real issue that concerns those who care about young people is that after this legislation comes into force, party pills will still be readily available—readily available in attractive-looking specialist stores and even in dairies, so that people can buy them along with their bread and milk. Mr Cosgrove can note that this bill will not stop the use of party pills in our community, or party pill shops. The 18 years and older purchasing age will still continue to be infrequently enforced, because we know that the purchases of under-18s are rarely challenged, and that dairies are recognised as one of the easiest places in which to make a purchase. There will still be no control over the standard of packaging, over the number and dosage of pills per pack, or over recommended dosages—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Because they’ll be banned.

NICKY WAGNER: Only BZP will be banned, not party pills as such. So although BZP will be banned, that will still do nothing to solve the problem of party pills, and it will do nothing to address the issues regarding the supply and control of party pills that have been raised by schools, youth workers, and parents.

Just as in the cases of the amendment to section 59 of the Crimes Act and the dog microchipping bill, we have legislation on BZP, but it offers no long-term solution to the problem regarding party pills.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction) on behalf of the Hon Jim Anderton (Associate Minister of Health): I move, That the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill be considered by the Health Committee, and that the committee present its report finally to the House on or before 15 November 2007.