Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) : I move, That the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. This bill removes the legal market for what are called party pills. I am pleased that after looking at the bill the Health Committee has recommended it should proceed without amendment. The Health Committee has worked hard in its consideration of this legislation and I would like to thank all members of the committee for their valuable work.

It is helpful to go back to the origins of this bill to explain what this amendment legislation does. In June 2005 the House passed a Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act that made it an offence to supply benzylpiperazine (BZP) to anyone under the age of 18, to give away products containing BZP, or to advertise BZP. Those controls were introduced so that there were some controls on BZP while research, which I commissioned, was carried out into this drug. The fear was that it could be harmful, and Parliament took a precautionary approach while we sorted out the facts. Parliament should always, in my view, make decisions in this area on the basis of the best evidence available. Last year the Ministry of Health received more evidence and it brought us to this bill today. The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs advised that the independent research, which the Government had commissioned, showed BZP and related substances pose a moderate risk of harm to users. This is not the assessment of politicians; it is the assessment of experts on the panel that we appoint to give us the benefit of their expertise.

Once this House has been advised that there is a risk of harm, what is it going to do with that information? Just over a year ago, on 20 December 2006, I publicly released the committee’s advice and began a consultation process on classification. The consultation process closed in March and the submissions were then analysed. The expert committee met again in May with more up-to-date evidence and again advised a majority view of the members of Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs that BZP posed a moderate risk of harm. This bill puts the committee’s recommendations to me into effect. It will classify BZP and related substances as class C1 controlled drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. It will set a threshold for presuming possession for supply of 5 grams or 100 BZP tablets or pills each containing some quantity of BZP and related substances. It will remove BZP from schedule 4 of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2005 so that it can no longer be sold as a restricted substance. It also provides for an amnesty period of 6 months for possession and/or use of less than the presumption for supply amount of 5 grams or 100 tablets. That is to give users the time to get used to the fact that this is now an illegal substance.

I will deal briefly with some of the issues raised at the select committee. Some submitters claimed that the expert committee relied on incomplete or non - peer-reviewed information when it made its recommendation that BZP poses a moderate risk of harm. Their claims, in my view, do not stand up to scrutiny. After the expert committee provided its advice to me the Ministry of Health arranged for key studies to be peer reviewed. These peer reviews, and researchers’ responses to these peer reviews, were considered by the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs in May last year before it reaffirmed its recommendations to me to classify BZP as a class C1 drug. I have thought very carefully about other concerns that were raised—especially the concerns that a classification of BZP might lead some people to other more potentially harmful drugs. These sorts of choices are always, of course, to some extent influenced by both personal and environmental factors. But I am convinced that a large number of people use BZP because it is legal and it is readily available. There is an analogy with alcohol. Alcohol is easily New Zealand’s most damaging drug. That is not because it is the most intrinsically harmful drug; it is because alcohol is both legal and easily available. If we remove the legal market for BZP-based party pills, large numbers of users will stop using the substances they are made from. That is the evidence we have from previous classifications of other drugs.

These are substances that experts consider pose a moderate risk of harm. I know this issue is a concern to the Green Party. However, I find it extraordinary that a party that campaigns against some breakfast cereals and Coca-Cola wants to liberalise the availability of something that experts say poses a moderate risk of harm, particularly to young people. When it comes to genetically modified organisms the Greens advocate a precautionary principle. When it comes to fisheries protection the Greens advocate a precautionary approach, and I agree with them. When it comes to a drug assessed by experts as harmful, suddenly the Green Party seems to throw precaution to the wind. How can one be against Coca-Cola and in favour of party pills—even the regulated kinds of party pills? How can one be against fishing companies, chicken farmers, and pig farmers, and in favour of psychoactive drug manufacturers and suppliers? Unfortunately, where there is money to be made some people will take their opportunities, and party pills are no exception. This is a $30 million industry. The existence of party pills did not stop the manufacturers trying to find other products to bring to market, just as apples do not keep oranges off the market.

The only responsible and precautionary approach for the Ministry of Health, and for this House, is to monitor substances and weigh up the facts as they become available. Already the ministry has advised that any product that contains substances it believes are controlled drug analogues is illegal. Police have already taken action against one such product, and it has since been withdrawn from sale. In other words, the law is working as it was meant to do. Not only that, but the Ministry of Health is working with the Law Commission to develop a reverse onus of proof to ensure controls around substances entering the market are tightened up. It is my view that psychoactive drugs should have to be proved safe by their manufacturers before they are put on sale, not by Government agencies after they are put on sale.

I acknowledge concern about the potential to criminalise party pill users. It is to avoid punishing people unfairly that the bill has a 6-month amnesty period for possession of less than 5 grams, or 100 tablets. The amnesty ensures that there is enough time between the bill taking effect and users of party pills facing prosecution. However, no such amnesty exists for the suppliers and manufacturers of BZP; they are given 7 days from the day the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill comes into effect. Manufacturers and retailers of the drug will—under a Supplementary Order Paper drafted to amend the original enactment date of 18 December 2007, which was not able to be met—have 7 days after this bill receives the Royal assent to stop making and selling BZP and related substances. As most of them, if they had any common sense at all, anticipated that this bill would come into force in December, I do not see any problems in that regard.

I know the Green Party and the Māori Party believe that regulation of BZP is preferable to classification. I have considered this point carefully, but the advice of the expert committee to this House is clear. These substances are harmful enough to warrant classification. They are the experts in this; I would not claim to be one. Ignoring clear evidence-based expert advice is tantamount to voting for more harm to be caused to more people. I suggest to those parties that their support for an approach that experts say will harm people is morally indefensible. We are presented in this House with evidence, and when we can help prevent harm, that is what we should do. Let us be clear about the people those parties are saying they want to harm. One in five New Zealanders aged between 13 and 45 are who we are talking about. We are talking about New Zealanders as young as 13, even when the drug is regulated for those over 18 years old. As long as the drug is lawfully distributed, 13, 14, and 15-year-olds are going to get it far too easily. They will have no trouble getting these pills when their friends and brothers and sisters can go into gas stations and dairies and buy them—as they are, and were, doing. When people take BZP it has an effect on them similar to amphetamine. That is why experts consider it to have a moderate risk of harm.

I believe party pills will virtually disappear from New Zealand as a result of this classification. New Zealand now has an extensive body of evidence on BZP and related substances. The evidence shows that it would be a good thing for the drug to disappear from New Zealand. This legislation will remove legal access to BZP and related substances. It will allow the police and the Customs Service to prevent these substances from being imported and marketed, and prevent them from causing the moderate risk of harm that experts have identified. For that reason I commend this bill to the House, and support its passage through all its stages as quickly as this House can manage.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) : I am happy to speak in support of the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill. My only regret is that it is, in my view, 2 years too late, if not 3 or 4 years too late.

The Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill is a short bill. It simply has the effect of changing the classification of benzylpiperazine (BZP) and related substances from a class D to a class C drug, the same as cannabis. BZP is an ingredient used in the majority of party pills, which are used recreationally to enhance confidence, to induce feelings of well-being, and to work for long periods of time without a break. BZP is also used by a number of people to self-medicate out of situations in which they feel unhappy—situations such as mental illness. I have heard of sufferers of mental illness taking BZP because it makes them feel better than their prescribed drugs do, and of young people in troubled circumstances who, again, have self-medicated with BZP because it makes them feel happy and takes them out of their difficult circumstances. I have been told that there are truckdrivers and taxi drivers who use BZP because it helps them to stay awake. Research has shown that a certain dosage of BZP enhances driving. Unfortunately the effects of BZP are so random and unable to be calculated that I suggest that would be a very dicey way to go.

As a class D drug, BZP could legally be sold to those aged over 18, but under the legislation, restrictions were placed on advertising and free giveaways. By changing the classification to class C it will become illegal to sell, possess, or consume BZP party pills, but there will be a 6-month amnesty period for personal use.

The problem with this bill being held over from last year’s parliamentary sitting to this year’s parliamentary sitting is that a number of sellers and consumers, but mostly sellers, of BZP have had a golden opportunity to stockpile stocks of BZP, and although in the 6-month period following the passage of this bill they will not be able to sell BZP legally, an awful lot of BZP is stockpiled out there, so I fear we will have the presence of this psychoactive drug in our society for some considerable time—that is, until the next psychoactive drug comes on the scene. This bill introduces a 6-month amnesty period for personal use. This allows individuals with leftover BZP pills to avoid prosecution immediately after the bill comes into force, given BZP’s previous status as a legal drug.

This bill is a long time coming. In my view it has been too long in coming. In the 2½ years I have been a member of Parliament the Minister has talked about getting tough on drugs, yet here we are in March 2008 only at the second reading stage of this bill. I fear that the amount of warning the Minister has given this $30 million a year industry by saying he is really going to do something about this issue, and by saying how strongly he feels about this issue, has given the industry any amount of time to establish BZP markets, networks, and a clientele in practically every little town, not to mention city, the length and breadth of New Zealand. I hold the Minister responsible for that.

This has been a very public issue. I first became aware of BZP in party pills back in October 2005 when a party pill shop opened in my home town of Ōāmaru. I have lobbied the Minister for the subsequent 2½ years, and we are only just now debating this issue in the House. I will talk about some of the medical effects of BZP. BZP—or benzylpiperazine—is the key ingredient in these so-called party pills. The popularity of the pills has increased markedly in recent years due—and I agree with the Minister over this—to their legal status and the perception of their safety. BZP mimics the effects of methamphetamine, giving users a high with exaggerated blood pressure, heart rate, and metabolism. Other side effects can include anxiety, collapse, agitation, nausea, and seizures. Advocates of BZP, who are of course making a good deal of money out of the sale of it, claim it offers users of illegal drugs a safer alternative and therefore would displace illegal drug use. However, a Victoria University study disputes this myth, showing that party pill users are 10 times more likely to be users of LSD, Ecstasy, and Ritalin. The report’s author, Kate Bryson, concluded: “party pills are not fulfilling their purpose of reducing illegal drug use—for drug users, they’re just another item on the menu.” This conclusion is shared by Theron et al, who noted that an increase in BZP presentations to Auckland City Hospital did not reduce amphetamine presentations.

The danger of BZP is compounded by its potential status as a gateway drug to harder drugs such as LSD, Ecstasy, and methamphetamine, in the same way that cannabis is. Current research offers an unclear picture of the interaction between BZP and illegal drugs because of BZP’s recent entry into New Zealand society. That is a study by Dr Chris Wilkins. But research increasingly reports that faith in BZP’s safety is in fact misplaced. Emergency departments around New Zealand have noted a worrying rise in admissions of BZP users, and the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs stated in its advice to the Associate Minister of Health: “Severe adverse effects appear to be uncommon but occur unpredictably and have been reported at apparently low doses.” It goes on to state: “Toxic effects, including hyponatraemia and BZP related grand mal seizures that have been described even at relatively low doses, while very rare, have the potential to lead to death.”

So that begs the question, why have we waited? Why have we waited to recognise the dangers to our kids posed by BZP? To me it is right and sensible to rely on an evidence base for decision making, but I say to Minister Jim Anderton that I think as politicians we also have a responsibility to our communities and to those young people in our societies who are not able to make a good, sound decision about drug use. Although we currently have a limit of 18 years, much younger kids have taken BZP. We cannot expect our young children to make good decisions about drugs of any kind, particularly when we see party pills for sale next to jelly beans in the local dairy.

In closing, I support the passage of this bill but I regret that it has taken so long, and I regret that we now have in our society the expectation that chemicals are part of a good time.

LESLEY SOPER (Labour) : I rise to support the passage of the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill. This bill had lengthy and intensive consideration in the Health Committee. There were 52 submitters on the bill, many of them passionately in support of the reclassification of benzylpiperazine (BZP) and some equally passionately opposed to that. We heard from submitters as wide ranging as the Salvation Army, the pill manufacturers, and many individuals with many stories.

We heard wide-ranging opinions about the need, or otherwise, for reclassification of BZP. We heard stories of the harm that ithas already done, and we heard of its side effects. We heard that banning BZP would merely force young people on to harder drugs. We heard that BZP had beneficial effects, but we did not hear any substantiation of that. In fact, the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs informed us that there are no approved therapeutic uses for BZP. We heard that many young people had already given up on BZP because of the unpleasant side effects, and the implication seemed to be that therefore we did not need to reclassify it. We heard stories of BZP acting as a gateway drug to harder drugs. We heard of BZP’s ready availability—of the many shops that sell it. And we heard the argument that if we did not ban alcohol and tobacco, we should not be banning BZP. So we heard a very wide-ranging set of submissions on this amendment bill.

At the end of the submissions, and after very hard thinking and consideration, the Health Committee has recommended the bill should proceed without amendment. The bill amends the Misuse of Drugs Act by removing BZP from its current scheduling as a restricted substance and adding it to the schedule 3, Part 1, class C classification of that Act. The effect of that classification will be to make the sale and use of BZP, and of related substances commonly included in currently legal party pills, illegal from the passing of this bill. Once this bill is enacted the penalties for the supply of BZP and related substances will be up to 8 years’ imprisonment, consistent with those applying to other class C1 drugs, such as cannabis. With such a tough penalty, we obviously gave a great deal of consideration to that hard-thought-out recommendation.

However, an amnesty period for possession and use is proposed in the bill for 6 months after the legislation comes into effect, whereby possession of less than 5 grams or 100 tablets of BZP for personal use, unless otherwise proven to be for supply, will not be a criminal offence. When that amnesty expires, the normal penalties for possession and use of a class C1 drug of up to 3 months’ imprisonment or a $500 fine, or both, will apply.

The purpose of the principal Act is to prevent the misuse of drugs by imposing legislative controls over harmful substances. It provides a mechanism for the classification of drugs.

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

LESLEY SOPER: When we broke for dinner, I was pointing out that the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 and the amendment bill that we are discussing tonight have a primary purpose: to prevent the misuse of drugs, through legislative controls over harmful substances. The legislation provides a mechanism for the classification of drugs according to their degree of harmfulness, and sets out legitimate access to these drugs, including licensing, prescribing, storage, and import and export controls. It also establishes when the New Zealand Police and New Zealand Customs Service can take action to control the supply of illicit drugs. Under a 2005 amendment to the Act, it was already an offence to supply BZP to anyone under the age of 18, to give away BZP-containing products, and to advertise BZP. Unfortunately, there was ample evidence that under-18-year-olds were obtaining BZP and related substances quite easily and legally, through the legal access of older friends and family members, who were doing the purchasing at a range of legal outlets.

The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs is a statutory body established under the principal Act and is responsible for advising the Minister of Health on drug classification issues. It is made up of experts from the fields of pharmacology, toxicology, psychology, drug and alcohol treatment, community medicine, pharmaceuticals, public health, police, the Ministry of Justice, and a representative of consumers of drug treatment services. The committee is expected to work with evidence-based research. The expert committee had looked at the classification of BZP and related substances more than once. In 2006, with new research available, it made a further assessment and concluded that BZP and related substances posed a moderate risk of harm. It recommended the removal of its status as a restricted substance from the Act and its classification as a class C1 controlled drug. The Associate Minister of Health the Hon Jim Anderton quite rightly publicly released the committee’s advice in December 2006 and began a consultation process on the classification of BZP. In May 2007 the expert committee met again, with even more up-to-date evidence, and again advised a majority view that BZP and related substances posed a moderate risk of harm.

I need to point out several things here. To those who say we are legislating too late, I say that our expert advisers needed to have the full evidence-based backing for their advice. To those who say the research was not robust enough and not peer reviewed, I say that by the time of the reconfirmed advice in May 2007 it was both robust and peer reviewed, and that the Health Committee explored those issues quite fully. To those who say that stricter regulation and enforcement would have been enough, I say that once BZP and related substances were assessed by our expert advisers, on the evidence, as posing a moderate risk of harm, then they ceased to be able to just stay as restricted and regulated substances under schedule 4 of the Act. To those who say that no one has yet died, I say it is better to take a precautionary and protective approach to public health now, based on evidence and expert advice, than to wait for one or more deaths to occur. To those who say that we are not legislating in the same way for alcohol and tobacco as for BZP, I would remind them that alcohol and tobacco have their own legislative frameworks. In this case we were dealing with the Misuse of Drugs Act and with these particular substances. To those who say that we are criminalising party-pill users by this amendment, I say that I believe the 6-month amnesty is a reasonable answer.

For all those reasons, I am comfortable to support the passage of this amendment bill, and to commend it to the House. Thank you.

Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) : I think members have outlined pretty succinctly what this bill will do. It will simply change the classification of benzylpiperazine (BZP), or party pills, from being a class D drug to a class C drug. So BZP will become an illegal substance to sell, consume, or possess. As the previous speaker Lesley Soper observed in her scintillating speech, there will be a 6-month amnesty period for personal use, which will allow individuals with left-over party pills to avoid prosecution immediately after the bill becomes law.

I think the best contribution I can make now to this debate is to read out the executive summary of advice to the Associate Minister of Health from the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs. So members should brace themselves! The executive summary states: “The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs (EACD) considered benzylpiperazine (BZP) and related substances at its meeting of 19 March 2004. The EACD considered evidence provided by the Ministry of Health’s secretariat, the New Zealand drug enforcement agencies and others. The EACD considered the information before it in the terms of the criteria the EACD must apply before making a recommendation to the Minister. It concluded that there was insufficient information available on which to base a recommendation to classify these substances in the schedules of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. However, the EACD brings to your attention some matters the committee members considered important and which, if acted on, may form the basis for reconsideration by the EACD. The committee considers that: more information on the health effects of BZP and similar substances should be obtained; the prevalence of BZP use should be investigated, possibly through routine toxicological screening through community laboratories; it is inappropriate for BZP to be marketed as a dietary supplement; regulatory options should be explored which could provide additional classifications in the Act allowing partial control, eg putting conditions on the promotion or sale of products, particularly to young people; there is reason to be concerned that evidence indicates that BZP can create adverse reactions when taken with prescription medicines, such as Selective Serotonin Re-uptake Inhibitors (SSRI’s); restricting access to the products that contain BZP may lead to users of these products seeking more harmful controlled drugs as substitutes for BZP; papers provided to the Committee included proposed moves by the industry to develop ‘self-regulation’ covering issues such as advertising, age-of-use, labelling and retailing. The EACD is not recommending industry self-regulation as the preferred long-term regulatory option.” It goes on to state: “This paper presents evidence on the risk of harm associated with Benzylpiperazine (BZP) and similar substances. They are stimulant-type substances that produce effects similar to known amphetamines and hallucinogens. The information presented addresses the criteria that the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs (EACD), must take into account when considering the appropriate classification of a substance under section 4B of the Act. There is some concern over the increase in supply of these products, which are marketed and distributed independently over the internet, through counter-culture retailers, and more recently in liquor outlets, service stations and dairies. Advertising of these products has occurred in a manner that appears to take no account of the impact on younger people. A significant industry has developed, with at least 1.5 million doses having been manufactured in New Zealand last year. The base substance benzylpiperazine (BZP) has legitimate therapeutic uses as a treatment for internal parasites in cattle.”

Peter Brown: Why don’t you just table the report and we can all read it.

Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: This is not a Dad’s Army issue, I say to Peter Brown. The report continues: “Although it has been clinically trialled in some countries as an antidepressant medication for humans, there is no known human therapeutic use of BZP.”

The recommendations of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs were the following: “After considering all of the information put to the Committee and the classification criteria in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, the EACD makes the following recommendations to the Associate Minister of Health: After considering the evidence the EACD believes that there is no current schedule of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 under which BZP could reasonably be placed. The Minister of Food Safety should be requested to consider the appropriateness of permitting the chemical, BZP, to be sold as a dietary supplement in New Zealand when it has known no nutritional value. The EACD recommends that the Minister direct the Ministry of Health to conduct further research into the potential harms associated with the use of BZP. The EACD recommends that the Minister direct the Ministry of Health to investigate the possibility of gathering prevalence data on BZP via the introduction of routine toxicology screening via community laboratories. The EACD recommends that the Minister direct the Ministry of Health to examine options for new categories of classification that can incorporate some levels of control and regulation, such as an 18 plus age limit, without prohibiting access to these substances completely. This paper should be made publicly available (eg, posted on the National Drug Policy website www.ndp.govt.nz) as soon as practicable.” There is a little bit there about media enquiries, which I do not think we need to go into further. So that is a summary of the recommendations.

As we have heard, the National Party is supporting this bill. In conclusion, I tell members that I have a copy of this report available for tabling.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) : On behalf of New Zealand First, I rise to support the second reading of the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill. It is a very important bill and one that we should have seen earlier. In fact, we should have seen this legislation when the Misuse of Drugs Act was talked about in the last Parliament. I remember New Zealand First being the only party to put forward a Supplementary Order Paper seeking to ban benzylpiperazine (BZP) at that point in time, because we were unsure of the long-term effects of this particular substance. Needless to say, the Supplementary Order Paper was voted down, because New Zealand First was the only party that supported it—and perhaps United Future. So we are very pleased to see that this bill has returned from the Health Committee, as we believe that this is an issue that needs to be progressed, and progressed quite quickly, particularly as the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs has issued a report—which we have heard at length—and has advised against BZP being freely available. We need to take notice of those committee members; after all is said and done, they are the experts.

There have been no long-term studies into the effects of BZP on young people, and although we have some people who say there are no ill effects, it has never been scientifically proven. The substance, basically, has not been around long enough to have been fully studied, and, quite honestly, we do not want our young people here to be the case studies for other countries around the world where BZP is banned. The substance cannot be guaranteed to be harmless. It is a concern, particularly when we see the large quantities that some young New Zealanders have consumed and are consuming. We believe that a precautionary approach to substances such as this should always be taken; we cannot afford to test the water with both feet. This is a whole generation of young people that we are actually experimenting with. We in New Zealand First do not want our young people to be unwittingly part of a huge health experiment—something that has not been done on this scale before. Being a lab rat, particularly unwittingly, is basically not good enough, even though our young people appear quite happy to take these drugs, regardless of the risks that surround them.

We have had reports from emergency departments that indicate a lot of concern by those in the medical profession for the young people who have had bad reactions from exposure to this drug. Unfortunately, this has not deterred most young people. When one is young, consequences always happen to somebody else, never to oneself. Young people drink alcohol and pop party pills, even though there is a warning on the pack that these two substances should not be mixed. We know that it is very difficult for some people even to follow the instructions of their doctors and pharmacists when taking prescription drugs, so it is no surprise that when young people go and buy these party pills from dairies, garages, and other outlets, they do not follow the instructions on the packs of party pills, particularly when they are very keen to get into the party mood.

I know that some parties in this House say that the health effects of alcohol and tobacco are just as bad, if not worse, than BZP—and we will hear from those speakers later on—so in New Zealand First we ask why we have to add another substance, like BZP, to this list. Enough grief is caused by alcohol and tobacco. Have we learnt absolutely nothing? I do not believe that we have. We are trying to do something here, and New Zealand First definitely supports this bill. We believe that we cannot afford to gamble with the lives of young people and have future health problems of massive proportions on our hands. We already have more health problems than the district health boards can cope with, so why should we add extra challenges?

We realise that this legislation will not actually stop the party pill culture or the widespread consumption of some other substance promising to offer the same type of buzz or high. No doubt the second generation of party pill is already well on the way, and we can only hope that a precautionary approach by the expert advisory committee will be followed on those particular substances, because we know that boundaries will be pushed on every substance.

It never ceases to amaze me, and perhaps others in this House, that manufacturers never have to prove that party pills are safe before they are actually put on sale, yet manufacturers of food, drugs, and medicines have to do so. It seems rather ironic that a loophole in the Misuse of Drugs Act can be exploited. We know that it is there, but we have taken no action to rectify it. Only last year we read of a person who took part in a trial of non-BZP pills and was hospitalised when he found himself with problems like being unable to breathe, going numb, and having his blood pressure almost doubling. So there are challenges ahead, we say. There are lots of issues ahead with party pills; in New Zealand First we look forward to dealing with them. We will have to add all of the new substances to this legislation, or even enact other legislation, as these new substances become available.

Another great concern we have with party pills is that manufacturing standards cannot be guaranteed under the current voluntary regulations that operate. We have to acknowledge the Social Tonics Association, and its attempt to have a voluntary code for the manufacture of party pills in order to try to limit the amount of BZP in a tablet, to place warnings on these coloured and highly emotive sounding packets, and to restrict sales to people aged over 18. But of course we know that that code is only voluntary and there is no follow-up to ensure that these manufacturers are actually following this code in any way, whatsoever. It is a big concern.

One of the most urgent problems is the continued supply of BZP in excessive and sometimes dangerous doses by irresponsible operators. To buy it in a paper bag is not really good enough, and we know that that has been a particular problem in the Christchurch area.

New Zealand First is very pleased to see this legislation come before the House. We know that something has needed to be done. We are pleased that at long last it is being done, and we look forward to the speedy passage of this legislation through the House.

METIRIA TUREI (Green) : The Green Party policy on these matters is about reducing harm. We believe that a drug-free lifestyle—and that includes that unlike the lifestyle of all the drinkers out there—is the healthiest, and that all drug use, regardless of whether legal or illegal, can cause harm. But it is also a fact that not all drug use is problematic, and that many of the Government policies in this area exacerbate harm rather than reduce it. Unfortunately, with the Government having failed to learn any lessons in the past, this bill is a classic example of that failed policy.

The Green Party favours strict regulation of party pills, not prohibition—regulation, such as heavily enforced age restrictions, restrictions on sites where outlets can be placed, mandatory health information, quality and quantity controls of the drug itself, severe restrictions on advertising, and severe penalties for breaching such regulations. This approach would much more effectively address the problems that have been raised by members in this House, rather than criminalising users and putting the control of these drugs into the hands of organised crime. We supported the Manukau City Council’s ban on party pills being sold at bottle stores, for exactly this reason. The council made a very good decision. This legislation will be a disaster for this country and for young people, who often are the ones who tend to take party pills more than older people.

Jim Anderton’s crusade against the Green Party, which again he launched into this evening, includes wrongly blaming us for his Government’s failure to prioritise his bill, which therefore made him look ridiculous. He promised the bill would be passed before Christmas and failed to make sure that it would happen. He cannot disguise the fact that this is politically expedient, knee-jerk legislation that will increase harm, rather than reduce it. Some MPs—some have done it tonight—and some media will be able to thump the table about being harsh on drugs, but this bill will result in many people switching from party pills to more harmful illegal drugs, such as methamphetamines, and the new generations of illegal pharmaceutical drugs that are coming through all the time. There is good evidence—and Barbara Stewart talked about it—of new generations of party pills being developed that may cause increased harm. The Government is giving away its ability to control that. So, rather than reducing harm and offering less harmful options to consumers, we are back to driving this recreational substance underground and boosting the illegal market for some wealthy drug dealers.

We have long deplored the widespread uncontrolled availability of party pills, including the fact that we can get them in dairies and gas stations, and the fact that the Government and Jim Anderton have made no attempt at all to reduce their availability through the regulations that Jim Anderton has available to him right now. There has not even been any real enforcement of the age restrictions on the access to party pills. It is absurd that Parliament is making a legal substance illegal before it has used any of its regulatory powers to control the access to, and the sale of, that substance. The 2005 change to the Misuse of Drugs Act provided that regulations could be made to restrict where party pills could be sold, and the manufacturing, dosage, packaging, and marketing of them. These are regulatory powers that the Government and Jim Anderton have in their hands right now. But they have not been used at all. The Health Committee was informed by submitters that there has been virtually no monitoring or enforcement of the party pill industry by enforcement authorities. So the Government has allowed this ready access to these drugs; it has not done a thing about it. There is little wonder that the status quo is not working, and party pills are widely available because the Government has allowed it to continue.

The select committee was told that the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs initially recommended that party pills be controlled by regulation but later changed its mind and opted for prohibition on the basis of two reports that were not peer reviewed until the middle of last year. Several submitters to the select committee criticised the key research paper that was prepared by the Medical Research Institute. All of the reviews, including the ministry’s review, concluded that the study was so flawed that its findings had no scientific credibility. Given that the science on which this legislation is based is utterly flawed and there is no scientific basis for it, what is the heinous evil that this Government is trying to remedy? The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs described benzylpiperazine (BZP) as a moderate risk and agreed that there is no evidence of aggressive behaviour, sexual assault, or date rape type behaviours from its use. There have been no recorded deaths solely as a result of BZP use. Should BZP be made illegal, this will discourage people who continue to use it from seeking medical advice. We have seen that same kind of research come out around other drugs that are illegal as well. It stops people getting help when they need it. There is no guarantee that scheduling a substance will reduce its availability or its potential risk of harm, so making it illegal is not going to change anything. Why do the MPs in this House, and this Government, not understand and learn from the experiences of the past. We cannot control a substance if we prohibit it and put it into the hands of an underground industry over which there is no control or regulation.

This legislation puts our people at risk, directly and clearly, when the alternative is to regulate and therefore be able to control how our kids might get access to these drugs. About 20 percent of New Zealanders have used party pills. They have been used for a number of years by around 400,000 New Zealanders, consuming about 26 million pills covering 10 million different occasions. All of the available research shows that simply banning BZP will send those people into the dangerous, illegal markets where they will be able to access other street drugs, including P. Mr Anderton cited the fact that young people can buy party pills from dairies and gas stations; he was talking about that earlier. But, again, I reiterate that he is responsible for that easy access, because he refused to use his powers to control it. It does beg the question of why he decided to do that. He had the option of making regulations but he chose not to because he was pursuing a prohibition approach. Does it serve his interests that our 13-year-olds have been able to access these drugs? Does it serve his interests that there has been no monitoring or enforcement, and therefore there is a proliferation of the sale of these drugs in easy places such as gas stations and dairies? What was Jim Anderton’s motivation behind failing to use his powers to properly control and regulate these drugs, when this was the legislation he wanted to bring to the House to put in place prohibition and give these drugs back to the illegal drug markets, over which he has no control?

People have spoken about the dangers of BZP, and all drugs have dangers. Last night Jo Goodhew spoke in the debate on the Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill and talked about the police, who deal with over 250 alcohol-related incidents every night of every day of the year. That is a terrible record for the police, and a terrible indictment on the harm that alcohol causes to our society. The select committee was told that the recorded adverse effects from party pills included things like anxiety, headaches, nausea, vomiting—they sound quite familiar, do they not, to anyone who has ever had a hangover—and heart palpitations. We know that so many other legally sold pharmaceutical drugs have these effects, and often far worse ones that cause psychosis and adverse health effects, but there are no moves to remove them from sale—nor alcohol, which we know causes so much damage, nor tobacco, which we know kills 5,000 New Zealanders a year. Five thousand New Zealanders a year are killed by the use of tobacco, and 1,000 are killed from alcohol abuse. They are killed by these drugs. Where is this Government’s commitment to protecting those young people, those families, from these drugs? It does not exist, because those drugs are accepted by this Government as being justifiably usable in this community. But when young people are finding alternatives to these drugs—alternatives that do not kill them—their choices are being taken from them and they are being driven to the illegal underground drug markets instead. They are being put in the hands of people who have no consideration or care for their health or well-being.

It is a disgrace that this Government chooses to criminalise and threaten those young people, while protecting other drug industries, such as the alcohol industry and tobacco industries, because those are the kinds of drugs that the members of this Government prefer to use. Those are the choices that are being made here. It is disgraceful that this legislation is before the House. The Green Party opposes it and will continue to do so until we can try to get some sensible, rational, evidence-based legislation around drug use in this country. Thank you.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) : Kia ora, Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou e te Whare. It seems to me that all of the pump and preaching, the moralising, the ranting, the pontificating, and the sermonising around this Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill is nothing but a wall of noise to hide the lack of information and the dearth of quality research about the use and effects of benzylpiperazine (BZP).

When I was able finally to peel back the noise, what I saw reminded me of a court case I was involved in back in 1981 where the prosecution had spent more than 2 years trying to stitch me up with what amounted to nothing more than insinuation and innuendo—minimum facts and maximum allusion. The prosecution case was so bloody flimsy that I described its efforts in my summing up to the jury with the well-worn cliché: “It seems to me that if you cannot dazzle them with brilliance, then you bamboozle them with bullshit.”

That is what this bill is all about—bamboozling people with bullshit to cover up a lack of proper research. Well, I won my case back in 1983—it started in 1981, but went for 2 years. But I won it, and so should all the poor kids whose health and well-being is being shamelessly trotted out as the basis for banning party pills. What this bill does do, though, is confirm the view that even when all the best advice says one thing if the Government is set on another course of action, then the Government wins out every time. It is like the Foreshore and Seabed Bill, for example, which had 2,171 submissions, 186 presentations, 10 consultation hui, and some 45,000 people marching on Parliament. It was an unprecedented rejection of this Government’s theft and extinguishment of Māori rights, and what did the Government go and do? It ploughed ahead, anyway. This bill is pretty much the same situation—80 percent of submissions opposed it and the Government is going ahead with it anyway. Go figure!

If that is not bad enough, even the opinions of the supposed jewel in the crown of youth development, the much-vaunted and widely promoted Youth Parliament of 2007, have been completely ignored. The Youth Parliament received submissions on the status of benzylpiperazine (BZP) from the Ministry of Health, the New Zealand Social Tonics Association, the New Zealand Drug Foundation, Care NZ, and the University of Otago. The Youth Parliament’s report, tabled in this House on 11 July 2007, stated: “The Health Committee has come to the conclusion that [BZP] should become legal with strong regulations surrounding party pills. We have decided on this because, due to little research having been done, there is insufficient evidence proving the long-term effects of this drug. … The Health Committee recommends to the Government that party pills should become legally available with heavy restrictions on advertising, on the age that people can purchase and use these party pills, and on who can sell the party pills and where.” Yet, despite the majority of submissions opposing the bill, and despite the strong recommendations of the Youth Parliament, this bill is still before this House for approval.

So what do we do about it? Well, back in the 1980s and 1990s Nancy Reagan of the National Party proposed the “Just Say No” campaign against drug use, which later shifted over to “just say no” to premarital sex and a list of other vices that America was trying to steer its young people away from. [Interruption] Oh, the Republican Party, was it? I am sorry. But that campaign was a failure, because it tried to oversimplify the scope and the nature of the problem, and it did not deal with the realities of drug abuse. What we need to do is to start looking at more comprehensive and meaningful approaches rather than merely focusing on users.

Let me be quite clear: the Māori Party is opposed to harmful drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, and we are equally committed to stopping substance abuse. But we also want the best information available to make our decisions, and we have found out that over the last 5 years our society has popped some 20 million party pills, with no recorded deaths. That is not to downplay any of the harmful effects of BZP—the nausea, the headaches, the hot and cold flushes, the poor appetite, the tremors, and the shakes. Mind you, those are the same symptoms that Parekura tells me him and his mates in the Labour Party Māori caucus have been suffering since the last Marae DigiPoll came out.

It is still a matter for concern that party pills have become such an entrenched part of youth culture, particularly given the young age of the Māori population and the high risk of substance abuse. But prohibiting the manufacture, sale, supply, and use of party pills will not solve the problem at all, because party pills, like alcohol, dak, and assorted other drugs, are drugs that people want to keep taking. When drugs are made illegal what actually happens is that people keep taking them, but the price jumps through the roof, and drug use becomes unregulated, unrestricted, uncontrolled, and unmanageable as the black market takes over. Of course, everybody is thinking: “And what about cigarettes, Hone?”. Well, unlike all those other drugs that people like taking, 80 percent of smokers actually want to stop, so banning the manufacture, supply, and sale of tobacco products simply does not have the same effect.

The most effective way to deal with party pills is not prohibition, but a properly enforced, strongly regulated harm minimisation approach, and the evidence shows that when drugs are effectively regulated, drug use and drug harm drops. Tighter regulation, health warning labels, controlled access, and quality and quantity controls have proven to be way more successful than prohibition. Youthline told the select committee that banning would not change anything, and other submitters also confirmed what we already know—that prohibition has no effect on the demand for drugs at all.

In conclusion, let me again say how hypocritical it is that this House can put all this energy into getting tough on BZP, while alcohol and tobacco abuse continues to maim and kill Kiwis in their thousands. Members should remember what I said before: that over the last 5 years more than 20 million party pills have been popped with no recorded deaths. Can we say that about alcohol and tobacco, though? Hell, no; hell, no! Alcohol and tobacco use and abuse have been researched to death, and we know, this House knows, the people know, and indeed the whole world knows, that alcohol and tobacco are directly responsible for the deaths of thousands upon thousands of New Zealanders every single year. Yet—I will say it again, because it is as important as that—alcohol and tobacco are directly responsible for the deaths of thousands upon thousands of New Zealanders every year, and what do we do about it? We do nothing; nothing at all.

Where do we get off on banning the drugs that kids like, while condoning the drugs that our generation goes for? Is that what we call showing leadership? It sounds like pretty gutless and petty jealousy to me. It sounds like we do not want young people to have fun, because we are too old for it. I have no issue with trying to come up with a decent answer on party pills, but let us not kid ourselves that we are banning party pills for the good of our youth, while turning a blind eye to the alcohol and cigarettes that are killing them in their thousands every single year. They tell me that I cannot use the word “hypocrite” to describe members in this House, so I will not. But let me tell members that it would take a great dose of duplicitous, deceitful, and dishonest double-dealing for anyone to allow this bill to go any further in this House. The Māori Party agrees wholeheartedly with the Green Party on this. Let us kill this bill and get on with reality. Kia ora tātou.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) : I agree with my colleague from the Māori Party that this legislation is hypocritical. The ACT party will be joining the Green Party and the Māori Party to oppose this bill. Normally, I always listen to Barbara Stewart’s speeches most carefully, because I have come to admire her contribution to this Parliament, but I have to say that I think Mrs Stewart is wrong on this issue. She said we should look to ban things because they might cause harm. I just want to dissect that thought a little bit.

Hone Harawira: Let’s ban Māoris, then.

RODNEY HIDE: Well, we should certainly ban Hone Harawira if that is the case!

Is that really what we think Parliament is about—banning things because they might be bad? It seems to me that risk and danger are part of life. I think we make the same mistakes with sports and accidents. Parliament is trying to create in a world where we cocoon everyone from the risks and realities of living in the world—and that would be the direct consequence of what Barbara Stewart was saying here today.

I go a bit further and pick up the point that the Green Party and the Māori Party have made. I think we overestimate what this Parliament can and cannot do. We sit in this House and pontificate as though all the young people who might be taking party pills are listening to us say that party pills are bad and as though, on a certain day in a certain year, they will therefore suddenly stop taking them. It is as though we think that these young people will know this legislation has been passed and that—oh my goodness—the police might come, and that will make them stop. That will not happen, and anyone in this House who thinks it will happen needs to get out more.

Barbara Stewart: We don’t think it will.

RODNEY HIDE: Barbara Stewart says New Zealand First does not think it will happen. So are we passing this legislation for looks? For the signal it sends? So we can stand up in the town halls and tell the mums and dads that we stood firm against party pills?

None of us are asking the real question: why is it that our young people want to get blotto? Is that not the question? Why is it that so many of young people, with all their lives ahead of them and with all the opportunities that they have in this great country, want to get blotto? I would have liked to hear Barbara Stewart address that question, because I think New Zealand First has some experience of this, actually.

Barbara Stewart: No, I haven’t taken party pills.

RODNEY HIDE: Well, party pills are no laughing matter. I do not think they are fun. I actually do think they are dangerous. I think any chemical one puts in one’s body is potentially dangerous, so it is not a laughing matter.

We sit around in this House and make a great joke about drinking alcohol, yet the risks with alcohol are not perceived risks—the abuse of alcohol is seriously risky. Alcohol is killing people and destroying lives and families. I do not hear New Zealand First jumping up to ban alcohol because of the risk. I will not name names, but there are people in New Zealand First who are finely acquainted with that drug of choice and very experienced in getting blotto on that drug of choice. But I do not see New Zealand First members standing up and wanting alcohol banned. Indeed, New Zealand First has seen the effects of that drug, sometimes on a daily basis—and the long-term effects. There is also nicotine, the most addictive substance that people can take.

Barbara Stewart: That’s right.

RODNEY HIDE: Barbara Stewart says that is right. Again, New Zealand First has some experience of that drug and the ravages it can cause young people. But do we hear New Zealand First explaining why people are taking these drugs?

Why is it that we are in here banning party pills—which, as far as we can tell, have not killed anyone—when nicotine is killing New Zealanders in their thousands and alcohol is destroying lives left, right, and centre? This legislation is steeped in hypocrisy—not the members voting for it, but the legislation itself.

Another problem with the legislation is that we will just add to the mystique of the drug culture. Funnily enough, we will attract more people into taking drugs, because it will be somehow naughty, just like it was in our day—if Mr Clarkson can remember. In our day we would get a half-g and head down to the riverbed on a cold night and drink it, thinking we were terribly naughty. Now it is party pills and other drugs. By passing this legislation we will put serious drugs up there with party pills. People will try party pills and say: “Oh, that wasn’t so bad. What about the other drugs that are available?”. Also, there will be no regulation on party pills and the other drugs we prohibit, so they will be freely available 24/7 everywhere one goes. That is a grim reality of passing this legislation.

Here is the next thing that will happen. The legislation will empower the gangs and make them rich and powerful. New Zealand First talks about the gang culture in New Zealand and thinks it can deal to the gang culture by getting rid of patches and fortifications. Actually, the way to get rid of the gangs is to get rid of prohibition, because it is actually the prohibition that enriches the gangs, gives them the money, and leads to the violence that we see so much of in New Zealand. The slayings that we are seeing are related to money made from drugs. We will not deal with that by making another drug illegal.

I ask members of Parliament to think a bit harder before we run to the legislative pen to make ourselves feel good and somehow moral because we are stopping a scourge. By adding more drugs and more prohibition, and bringing in more police, we are making matters worse. We are powering up the gangs, we are deregulating drugs, we are encouraging people to join the underground drug culture, and we are adding to the violence and misery in society. And we are not even doing it in a way that is consistent or principled. If we are to deal to the drug culture in New Zealand, it will be through the lessening and the ultimate removal of prohibition, and through a real inquiry by us and others into the dark corners of our society in order to question why, with the wonderful God-given mind each of us has, and our wonderful bodies and wonderful opportunities, so many of us, so often, want to get blotto and call that fun.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) : I rise to speak on the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill. I certainly take very seriously the points that have been made that alcohol and tobacco morbidity and mortality are the most significant effects of drug usage in New Zealand. There is no doubt about that, but I think it is also salutary to remember that it was not until 1963 that Sir Richard Doll clearly discovered the connection between the use of tobacco and lung cancer.

One of the remarkable things about party pills is that they are extremely new on the scene in New Zealand. In fact, I can refer to a very interesting article by Carroll du Chateau in the New Zealand Herald in May last year where she puts out a fact file that says that party pills, often advertised as herbal highs, have been available since late 2000. That is very, very recent in the history of personkind, given that alcohol and tobacco have been used for many, many centuries.

Hon Trevor Mallard: That’s a bit PC. What’s this “personkind” business?

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: “Humankind”, if you like, I say to Mr Mallard. Carroll du Chateau also says that although legal, party pills are chemically designed to mimic the effects of ecstasy and P, which we all know have extremely serious effects. She goes on to say that users become more sociable and wakeful and that adverse effects include insomnia, seizures, nausea, vomiting, and headaches. She also says that experts argue that criminalisation may drive pills underground, which is, indeed, a very serious argument.

The article brings up the trial that Professor Richard Beasley conducted in Wellington over a few years. I must say that the professor is someone who is highly regarded for conducting international clinical trials. It was pretty unusual for him to decide to abandon the trial because of the bad reactions from those who were taking the benzylpiperazine. He basically said: “We were concerned about the nature and severity of the adverse events range of side effects from anxiety to panic attacks, headaches and migraines, through to vomiting.” Consequently, the first-ever clinical trial of benzylpiperazine was abandoned. That gives us some context to the fact that this is a very contemporary phenomenon and that the first-ever clinical trial was abandoned because of the concerns. One might say that the clinical trialist has an incentive to carry on, because he is paid to carry on and complete such a trial. He gave up because of the concerns he had regarding it.

Obviously there has been huge—as Hone Harawira would put it—pump, preaching, cant, and moralising around the country on this issue. It is very important that we try to keep things as evidence-based as possible. There is no doubt that right throughout New Zealand we have had emergency service specialists comment on how concerned they are about the new phenomenon of admitting people—from age 7 to 93 in one instance at the Waikato Hospital emergency department—who have taken benzylpiperazine and its derivatives. The difficulty in getting an evidence base behind their effects is that so often they are mixed with other compounds—whether it be tobacco, alcohol, other party pills, or more serious ones such as Ecstasy, it is very hard to tell. But we do know that there are some pretty serious side effects, even if, as yet, deaths have not been recorded.

The other great concern is whether benzylpiperazine is one of the many gateway drugs. Again, the evidence is actually not very clear, although here at Victoria University a study believes that party pills users are 10 times more likely to be users of LSD, Ecstasy, and Ritalin. The report author, Kate Bryson, concluded that “party pills aren’t fulfilling their purpose of reducing illegal drug use—for drug users, they’re just another item on the menu.” This conclusion is shared by a further study from Auckland City Hospital.

One of the things we have relied on in New Zealand has been the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs. Its mandate is to ensure that drug classification decisions are evidence-based, appropriate for our domestic situation, and consistent with international obligations. It has quite a wide spectrum of duties to fulfil. I vividly remember its report from 2004 when I was on the Health Committee; I think both Katherine Rich and I were on it. At the time the recommendations were very clear that, firstly, at that stage of events it was not appropriate to reclassify benzylpiperazine. In fact, the recommendation said that there was no current need for rescheduling the Misuse of Drugs Act. Secondly, it said that the Minister for Food Safety should be requested to consider the appropriateness of permitting the chemical benzylpiperazine to be sold as a dietary supplement, because at that stage it was. It seems pretty bizarre to think that was the fact and that indeed young New Zealand children could buy it next to the jelly beans in outlets throughout the country. The report of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs went on to recommend that the Ministry of Health conduct further research into potential harms and that the Minister direct the ministry to examine options for new categories of classification, levels of control, and regulations such as an 18-plus age limit, without prohibiting access to these substances completely.

That was in 2004. Since then a further report in 2006 was carried out by the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs and another in May 2007, that were quite conclusive. There is no doubt that there have been divergent opinions, and it was not a unanimous view by that committee, but it did recommend that benzylpiperazine be reclassified into class C, that the classifications class C1 drug covers all known analogues, and that benzylpiperazine be removed from schedule 4 in order that it no longer be a restricted substance. They also said that work should continue to further develop the regulatory framework and enforcement capacity that would support the restricted substances provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act. I would like to add that if one looks at schedule 1 and schedule 2 of this new amendment, one can see that it includes not only benzylpiperazine but many of its derivatives, such as—as stated in schedule 1—“(3) The isomers of the substances mentioned in clause 2”, “(4) The esters and ethers of the substances mentioned in clause 2”, and “(5) The salts of the substances mentioned in clause 2”. Back in 2003 somewhat radical legislation was brought into this Parliament by the rapid scheduling mechanisms, because we know that those dealing in drugs, the gangs involved, and the big money people behind them are extremely keen to re-alter the chemical composition of the drugs so that they do not fit in with the legislative descriptions. That is very important if one is going to schedule them and make sure that they are well covered.

I would finally like to say that I intend to bring up an amendment that would require monitoring of this legislation, if it is passed, and a report to the relevant parliamentary select committee in 2½ years’ time on the effects of having rescheduled these substances, because I believe that if there are adverse effects then Parliament should be made formally aware of them.