The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The debate on this part includes schedules 1 and 2.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) : I am very pleased to rise to speak in support of the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill, but I would have been even more pleased to rise to speak on this bill back in early December, as was scheduled. It was a cause of great regret to me that we had to go through another Christmas and New Year period with young people—including kids as young as 11, who first stick their heads up and start looking around at the world about them and seeing what is on offer—being able to see benzylpiperazine (BZP), or party pills, freely available in convenience stores and dairies. Those young people, being under 18 years, did not see them in liquor outlets, but, of course, BZP pills for sale in liquor outlets brings with it its own perils, as, no doubt, the medical practitioners in the country’s accident and emergency wards will have discovered. So we have had another 4 months of BZP being visible in our community, and I say again that I regret that.

I want to address Supplementary Order Paper 180, if that is in order, and to note the proposed amendments as put forward by the Minister in the chair, the Hon Jim Anderton. His amendment to clause 2 proposes to omit “18 December 2007” and substitute “1 April 2008” as the commencement date. I say that this is a Supplementary Order Paper of shame. This bill should have been dealt with at the end of last year, or is this just an instance of another broken promise; just another delay?

The Supplementary Order Paper also proposes to amend clause 6 by omitting “18 June 2008”, which refers to the expiry date of the 6-month amnesty, and substituting “1 October 2008”. Again, I say that the Minister in charge of drug policy has failed the young people of New Zealand, in failing to address this issue of recreational drug use by young people.

It is now March 2008. I was elected to Parliament in September 2005, and practically the first person who came through the door of my newly opened electorate office was somebody who was very concerned about the use of party pills in our society. At that time, I thought this was only a small issue in my home town of Ōāmaru, but as events have subsequently shown, it is not. The sale of party pills is a fast-growing industry in New Zealand, and in the 2½ years I have been an elected member I have been working hard to get this legal drug trade shut down.

I turn to a press release by the Progressive party that was put out in the name of the Hon Jim Anderton, who made a couple of comments about National MP Jacqui Dean “taking up this issue”. It is interesting, is it not, that we both support this bill, yet in the press release he took me to task for bringing a petition of 7,000 signatures to Parliament. He stated: “All 7000 signatories and all those other New Zealanders concerned about party pills, should be assured that this government has acted, is acting and will continue to act to ensure these products are appropriately dealt with.” The Minister’s press release continues: “The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs will reassess BZP party pills as soon as all the research has been completed, which I am advised will be between June and November this year.” That is fine, and I say to the Minister that it is a good example of front-footing it, which is what the headline states. The trouble is that this press release was dated 15 March 2006—nearly 2 years ago, to the day. Far from front-footing it, I would suggest that “flat-footed” would probably be a more apt description.

The shame is that in those 2 years when we were waiting and waiting, the Minister could not see what was happening right in front of him in New Zealand society. More and more, and ever more, young New Zealanders have been cottoning on to the idea that in order to have a good time, one first must pop a pill. I think that is a shame.

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) : I want to make a brief comment. No one was slow-footed in this regard. What was happening was that the Government was authorising, commissioning, and paying for research into benzylpiperazine (BZP) that had not been taking place anywhere else in the world. The Government was following an evidence-based approach to drugs. I would recommend that approach to the member; it would stop her suggesting that water should be outlawed by the Misuse of Drugs Act! If she had done her research properly, she would know things like that. That is—

Mark Blumsky: That’s a silly argument.

Hon JIM ANDERTON: It may be a silly argument. That makes the member who proposed it pretty silly, does it not?

Mark Blumsky: This is not relevant.

Hon JIM ANDERTON: It is relevant. When someone wants to raise the issue of the Government commissioning research so that the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs could be well advised, in an evidence-based manner—

Jacqui Dean: This is a serious matter.

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I wish the member could take it seriously, then. What the Government did was commission research that then advised the advisory committee in its decisions. I would recommend that the member show more commitment to an evidence-based approach rather than a knee-jerk reaction. If there were ever any possibility of any members opposite being responsible in Government, they would have to get used to the idea that one does not have, on the back of an envelope, something that one wants to ban next week, then turn up in the Chamber and try to do it. It does not work.

I advise the Committee that Supplementary Order Paper 177 in my name has been withdrawn and replaced by Supplementary Order Paper 180. Supplementary Order Paper 177 proposed to have an enactment date of 7 days following the Royal assent, but I have been advised by the Attorney-General and by the Ministry of Health that on consideration they believe that it would be better to have a specific date. To have a date in the legislation provides for certainty around when the classification will come into force. There are a large number of party pill retailers in New Zealand, and it is important to ensure that they are all certain of their obligations under the law. To have a date set in the legislation allows for greater clarity around this change of legal status of BZP. In addition, a set enactment date provides more clarity to users of BZP, and related substances, regarding the exact date on which the amnesty period will expire. This amendment is designed to give certainty to those dates so that there is no lack of clarification about when legal obligations come into effect.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) : Thank you, Mr Chairperson, for the opportunity to speak on Part 1, which deals with the amendments to the principal Misuse of Drugs Act and also with the amnesty provision.

One of the words that I have heard emanating from Minister Anderton’s mouth repeatedly has been the question of having an evidence base, and it intrigues me that the letter of 4 December 2006 to Jim Anderton from the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs states: “The programme of research on benzylpiperazine (BZP) that has been undertaken has allowed New Zealand to take a strongly evidence-based approach …”. In actual fact, we do not need to have the word “strongly” in front of it; an approach is either evidence-based or it is not.

It is highly relevant that the only controlled respective trial on these side effects was undertaken by Professor Richard Beasley. The clinical trial was abandoned because he was concerned about side effects. I accept that Professor Beasley is one of the highly regarded international clinical trialists, and I very much accept his judgment that it was ethically appropriate to abandon that trial, but I believe that Minister Anderton ought to be very careful about saying that everything has a strong evidence base about it, when clearly we have a lot of anecdotal evidence around us that still remains quite contentious—not only as to whether it does have an evidence base but certainly from a political point of view.

That is the reason why I have put forward Supplementary Order Paper 181. I have not yet had time to discuss this Supplementary Order Paper with the Minister, but I believe that he does not intend to support it. I think that that is very unfortunate, because this Supplementary Order Paper proposes that there be a review by the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs approximately 2 years after the Act comes into being. It is very important that that review actually does take place, and that a formal process be required by Parliament to ensure that it occurs so there can be a response from the Health Committee. I was advised that it was appropriate to get the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs to do that review. Although there has been contention among some of the parties as to the fact that the advisory committee’s decision of advice to reclassify BZP was not unanimous, I believe that it is still the best instrument to use to make such a decision, in that it has the experts who are relevant to this drug and it probably has the best knowledge of anyone in New Zealand. The point is that there was great concern that reclassifying BZP might drive the drug underground, and I think we want to know both the social and medical effects of having this reclassification.

I am deeply disappointed in Minister Anderton for failing to grasp a highly constructive suggestion that would help to ensure that further evidence is discussed by Parliament, by law, rather than Mr Anderton suddenly deciding that, no, we will whip through this legislation and we will not even bother looking at it in a formal way in years to come. There is no doubt in my mind that this must be—

Hon Jim Anderton: What are we doing now?

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: No—the whole point, I tell Mr Anderton, is that it is very important that we look at the effects this legislation will have, both from a medical point of view and from a social point of view. The Minister was not listening at the time, but I am sure that he has heard the highly prevalent argument that the legislation may drive the use of BZP and related party pills underground. We want to know whether that happens. It will be great if that is not the case, and it will be great indeed if this legislation is effective in reducing the use of party pills in New Zealand.

I find it quite extraordinary that the Minister is not prepared to support a highly reasonable Supplementary Order Paper that is actually designed to assist the quality of this legislation. So I hope the Minister will review his thoughts on that. Once again, just to go over the fact, I think it is important to say that this legislation and the need for it have changed rapidly over the last 5 years. In 2004 the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs said that the legislation was not necessary, but it reviewed that position and ended up in the opposite direction 3 years later.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) : I rise to make a further point on Part 1 of the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill, to address the amnesty provision in clause 6, which provides a limited period in relation to the use and possession for personal use of benzylpiperazine (BZP). In the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 180, the period is to 1 October 2008, during which time it is illegal to sell or supply BZP, but there is an amnesty period for those people who have BZP in their possession to be able to take it legally.

That is not a worthy provision in the bill; it is a sop to those drug users who have had plenty of notice that the Minister intends to act on this issue. It is a soft, unworthy Supplementary Order Paper.

I will quote from a man called Matt Bowden from the Social Tonics Association. He is a man who is associated closely with promoting this $30-million-a-year industry. He himself acknowledges that it is not a good idea for people to go crazy now they have a bit of extra time. He says that people should take a few weeks to recover between parties and to make sure they are not overdoing it.

That says two things. It says that now people have been given this out, this amnesty, they will stockpile BZP—whether for their own use we do not know. The gentleman from the Social Tonics Association also acknowledges—utterly acknowledges—that what we have here is in fact a dangerous substance. It is an acknowledgment that BZP is a dangerous substance, and when the promoter, the seller, of that substance says that it is not a good idea for people to go crazy, that they should take a few weeks to recover between parties, and that they should make sure they are not overdoing it, I think it really shows this Supplementary Order Paper for what it is.

I will go to the proposed amendment in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison and say how sorry I am that I understand that the Associate Minister of Health Mr Anderton will not support Supplementary Order Paper 181, because a number of submissions to the Health Committee raised the issue of what happens when you drive a drug underground. The question raised a number of times through the select committee process was: “OK, you are going to do this; you are proposing to ban BZP. What will happen?”. Well, in my view, Dr Hutchison’s Supplementary Order Paper addresses that very issue, because it proposes to monitor the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs—the very committee the Associate Minister of Health has been so careful to take advice from—and to utilise that very expertise and knowledge in order to do a review of the effect of this legislation.

I would have thought that that was a sensible and pragmatic way to address whatever consequences there might be of banning BZP. And I would have thought that the Associate Minister of Health would welcome this Supplementary Order Paper with open arms, instead, I suspect, of just walking away once this bill has been passed into law and saying: “Oh well, there we go. That’s done; move on.” I am afraid that New Zealand society will not move on like that, because we have a whole generation of young New Zealanders who over the course of the past 5 or 6 years have now come to understand that drugs can be legally sold in New Zealand and that it is quite acceptable to medicate on pills about which they know very little and about which we as a society know very little.

We know, anecdotally, that a number of other so-called recreational drugs are being developed and are waiting in the wings. They will come on to the New Zealand market. I would have thought that a Minister who really cared about this issue would grasp the opportunity with open arms to have a review of the effect of this legislation.

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) : Dr Hutchison suggested that there had been only one trial, in terms of evidence. There was not one; there were three. Two of the three trials strongly suggested that benzylpiperazine (BZP) was harmful, and one trial suggested there was no evidence of strong harm. The trial in Dunedin, at the National Poisons Centre, said that BZP should be classified as a controlled drug as soon as possible—and this is “as soon as possible”.

The second thing Dr Hutchison suggested was that there may be no evidence, if we made this drug illegal, that users would go on to more hard drug usage, and so on. The evidence is actually to the contrary. There is evidence, and the evidence is with drugs that have been classified previously. Those drugs that are classified have fallen away, in terms of use. The declaration of illegality, in terms of drugs, is useful in respect of reducing their use.

I point out that there are two very popular social and legal drugs—one is alcohol, and the other is tobacco. Having alcohol and tobacco in use, their being legal, and having them on supply in dairies and supermarkets has not reduced alcohol usage by much. It is only by the most strenuous work of the Government and other agencies that has reduced tobacco usage, which kills 4,700 people a year. If BZP did that, I think there would be riots on the street.

This amendment of Dr Hutchison is well intentioned but it is bad lawmaking, and he should know that.

Dr Paul Hutchison: Talk to parliamentary counsel.

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I have talked to parliamentary counsel. The Misuse of Drugs Act is currently up for a complete review, and that is the process and the opportunity to examine the role of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs, rather than to do so by an amendment to this bill. If we want to change its relationship and want it to report directly to the House, and all the rest of it, we can do it in that review—if we want to. But at the moment the committee’s function is to report to the Minister. That is in the Act, and that is how Parliament determined it should be. The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs was established to report to the Minister, not to the House. That is how the legislation operates. If we want to change the primary legislation, we should change it. But we should not do it with an amendment like this to this amendment bill.

The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs can now investigate, examine, and monitor in any way it wants to. MPs can ask it to, and they do, and members of the public can write to it, and they do. MPs and members of the public can write to me, and I can recommend or ask the committee to do it. So there is no lack of ability to get the committee to look at issues now and review them, and it does. This very bill is a review of BZP by the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs when it made a regulation 2 years ago that BZP should not be on sale to those under 18, and that there should be restrictions on electronic and media advertising, and so on. Now it has reviewed it and has come back with a recommendation that it should be classified as class C.

There is another problem. If Parliament instructs the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs to do something like monitor, evaluate, or whatever, then who is going to pay the money? Does Dr Hutchison have some money that he is going to give to it? The committee has to have money allocated to it to do this work. The work of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs, in terms of the research that was done, was paid for by the Ministerial Committee on Drug Policy. We paid about $300,000 or $400,000 for that research. Is Dr Hutchison or Parliament going to vote for that? They do not have any authority to do it. It is a pointless exercise to think Parliament can instruct the committee, under the present way that the legislation is informed. If we want to change that, it is up to the Parliament—that is true—but it should be done by a thorough review of the Act, which is on the table to be done now. I thought that all parties welcomed that.

In my view, the intention of the amendment is fine but it is misplaced. It is the wrong place to do it, it is not a good order, in terms of policy making, and the Committee should concentrate its efforts on getting this legislation through now, on this particular issue, then dealing with any reviews in the review of the Misuse of Drugs Act. That is the proper way to go about it.

METIRIA TUREI (Green) : The Green Party has an amendment that will soon be on the Table. It is a very simple amendment to clause 2 in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 180. The amendment substitutes 1 May for 1 April as the date on which the Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill comes into force. It is not a huge change.

We have made it very clear that we oppose this legislation on principle, but there is a question here about the ability of businesses—particularly small New Zealand businesses, regardless of whether we think they are good businesses—to be able to rely on the law as it stands. We need to have practical law in place that enables them to comply with new law in good time when laws change.

The issue here is that between the time when this legislation is passed in this House and then comes into force, a large number of small businesses in this country will have to find a way, extremely quickly, to recall the product they have distributed in various forms around the place—I do not know quite how that works—bring it back to their own central offices, and then send it back to the distributor, as it will not be lawful for those businesses to sell that product or to hold it any longer. They simply cannot do it all in what could end up being only 7 working days. It will be simply impossible for them to comply with that aspect of the law.

As I say, this is not about whether we like these businesses or about what the businesses are engaged in. But if this Government and this Committee has any respect for small businesses and for the fact that businesses are entitled to rely on the law as it stands and should be able to be assisted at least with time frames to comply with changes in the law, then more time is needed. They do not need a heap more time and they are not asking for a heap more time, just a few more weeks to be able to put in place the mechanisms to recall the products they will need to recall.

I understand that they are asking for only 3 or 4 weeks in which to be able to do that. That is why we are not putting forward an amendment that will unduly mess with the legislation. It is not a delaying tactic. It is not designed to completely prevent the law from proceeding. We could have a whole range of amendments that do that. As members know, filibustering is possible, but the Green Party does not engage in it. We are very much engaged in practical measures to assist small New Zealand businesses.

I urge the Committee to support the Green Party amendment, which simply states that the legislation will come into force on 1 May, rather than 1 April. That will give these business people the opportunity and time to recall the products they need to recall, and make sure they comply with the legislation. Frankly, from the information I am getting from small businesses in general—those who deal with these products in particular—I see that they want to comply with the law. They want to be able to meet the legal regulations. They are not happy with the changes, obviously. The changes mean that many of them will go out of business. But they do not want to be in contravention of the law, because of the very serious consequences. That is responsible behaviour on the part of these small-business people.

These small-business people are doing their best to meet their legal obligations. Just as their product is legal now, it will not be legal in perhaps a week or so, and they want to comply effectively and properly. But they simply cannot, within the time frame they have been given.

I urge the Committee, the Minister, and the Government to seriously consider supporting the Green Party amendment, which will delay the introduction of the bill for just a month. That is not a very long time but it does give a great deal of assistance to these small-business people to do the right thing. That is a perfectly rational and reasonable approach for the Government and for the Committee to take. These are businesses, after all. They have employees whom they need to take care of. Employers will perhaps have to close down their businesses, reorganise all of their financial arrangements, fire the staff whom they have to fire, and give up their premises. They may have contracts for premises. They will have to deal with all those financial consequences, as well.

There is a lot they will have to do and comply with in order to be able to go out of business, if selling products containing benzylpiperazine is mostly what they are engaged in. They will have about a 7-day time frame in which to recall their products and manage their business while they are firing staff and getting out of other contracts that they may have to get out of. While bearing the financial burden of having to do that, it is perfectly fair that they are not given this extra burden of having to comply within such a short period of time. I urge the Committee to think seriously about this amendment. Thank you.

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) : I can respect the motives of the Green Party members, but I cannot agree with them. Originally, the time given was to be 7 days. That has been extended now to 1 April, to cover the issue of communications and all the rest of it. But to be fair, the people in the business community who sell these products—$30 million worth a year, roughly—have been under notice for about 18 months. If they had not known that this measure was coming up, then they must have been on some other planet, or at least in some other country. They would have known very clearly that there is very strong support in this House for the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill. They would have known that. The bill’s support was almost overwhelming when it went to the Health Committee, and it was clear when the select committee reported back that there was strong support for its passage. So anyone who did not know that this measure was coming in is being disingenuous when he or she says that, to be honest.

In truth, many retailers have stopped selling benzylpiperazine (BZP) now. I know that. I have seen them close their shelves in various shops in Christchurch, which seems to be the BZP capital of the world as far as I know, and there they have stopped selling it already. The retailers know that this legislation is coming in, they have stopped selling BZP, and it is a no-brainer. So those people who have not stopped selling BZP have taken the risk of carrying on, and there should not be any sympathy in this Committee for supporting them.

This $30 million business dines out on offering young people, primarily, a substance that we now know is harmful. We did not guess that; we did not make it up on the way here. We have been told by an expert committee on drugs, made up of professionals in this area, that BZP is harmful. Why would we want to continue to sell it? Why would we want to continue to sell something that is harmful? We are being conscious of the young people, mainly, who use BZP, and there is a 6-month period for them so that they do not rush into getting criminal offending going straight up. But, as I said before, once we make this substance illegal, all the evidence is that its sale and use will slow down and eventually become virtually nil, and that is the good news for the Committee.

Members should not forget that these businesses were actually expecting to have to stop selling BZP at Christmas. That is the truth. They all knew that; I made that pretty clear. But I am afraid that the Green Party made it very clear that it would not give us approval to go into urgency if we put this bill in the urgency motion then. We knew that, so we could not do it. In response to all the wailing from the National Party on this matter, I say that those members should just wait until one day—not in the immediate future—when they have to manage four or five parties in the House, and we shall see how they get on with that. I wish those members well; I think that the slippery sliding thing will be very obvious. Businesses have had another 3 months from last Christmas after the 18 months’ notice they were given. Christmas came and they still had 3 months, so why on earth would we want to give them even more time than that?

I cannot support the amendment. I am not suggesting that there are any ulterior motives behind it, but it just does not make sense.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) : I will take just a brief call, firstly, to say that we are always interested in practical amendments that are put forward to the Committee, and I think it is a shame that once again the Minister in the chair, the Hon Jim Anderton, does not seem to have an open mind with regard to this one. But I will focus for a moment on Mr Anderton’s concern when he said that the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs is supposed to report to the Minister, rather than to Parliament. Well, there is no doubt that it would be very easy for a responsible Minister to then report to Parliament. I think he is indeed being somewhat circuitous in suggesting that he will not support this very important practical amendment.

The point that should be emphasised is this. It was only in 2004 that the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs clearly stated: “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 no known nutritional value.” That was only 3 years ago. The committee went on to state: “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 committee has changed its view in 3 short years, and I agree that it is appropriate that it has changed its view, but the point I am making, which Mr Anderton seems to totally evade or misunderstand, is that this is a very rapidly changing area.

The Minister has just told the Committee that he hopes that once this legislation comes into place, suddenly and mysteriously party pills will no longer be used in New Zealand. But all the evidence I have heard anecdotally is that mischievous manufacturers will be putting these pills underground, and there is no doubt in my mind that Parliament should have a formal report from a respected committee such as the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs as to what is happening.

Minister Anderton talks about the review of the Misuse of Drugs Act. Well, why on earth, after 8 years of this tawdry Labour Government, has this review not happened? Why did it not happen so much earlier? The Minister is now at the eleventh hour, 5 months before he is due to be tipped out, talking about this being the sort of thing the Government could put in the review of the Misuse of Drugs Act. I would say to the Minister that he is being particularly churlish in suggesting that the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs has to report to him. I believe that if he has any sense of responsibility, then he could easily support this practical amendment, which is the insertion in the bill of a new clause 5A. It merely requires “A report on the effects of the reclassification of BZP and related substances must be presented to the House of Representatives by the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs within 1 month at the end of the period in subsection (1).”—that is, 2 years after the legislation comes into play.

The point the Minister is making is on a technicality that it cannot be done. I would have thought that a responsible Minister, who is concerned about reacting to drugs on an evidence base, should support this practical amendment.

• The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 181 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to new clause 5A be agreed to.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Would it not make more sense to put Metiria Turei’s amendment first?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): That amendment relates to clause 2, which is some way down the line.

KEITH LOCKE: Clause 2 is the first clause referred to on Supplementary Order Paper 180, and Metiria Turei’s amendment is also an amendment to clause 2.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): No, we are about to vote only on the Minister’s amendments on the Supplementary Order Paper that relate to this part. Ms Turei’s amendment will come later on in relation to clause 2—and we should be there shortly—but I am advised that it has no relationship to this part whatsoever.

• The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 180 in the name of the Hon Jim Anderton to clause 6 be agreed to.

• Amendments agreed to.

• Part 1 as amended agreed to.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) : Part 2 contains the amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2005. I make an observation of regret that the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of my excellent colleague Dr Paul Hutchison was so narrowly lost. It was an opportunity for this Committee to make some sensible legislation. After all, we have heard from the Associate Minister of Health that there would be a review of the Misuse of Drugs Act. In fact, he has been saying that for some time now. Back in November and December of last year I asked a number of written questions of the Minister about this review and I have had no firm reply. I wonder where this mythical review of the Misuse of Drugs Act is. When I asked the Minister about it he was unable to provide me with any terms of reference or any commencement date—in fact, he was unable to provide me with any information at all. So I question what stage that review is at. As the review is the course of action that this Government—until October of this year—has set itself, then I hope it does commence. How good it would be, in 2 years’ time or so, to have a report back to the House, as proposed by my colleague Dr Paul Hutchison, as to how this amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act is panning out.

A large amount of the debate around this issue from a number of other quarters has been the argument that if we make benzylpiperazine illegal, it will just drive the trade underground. The Minister himself indicated earlier in the debate that it was his belief that the use of benzylpiperazine would in time diminish away. Which of those two views do we believe? Why is this Committee—by a very, very small minority, or one vote—not prepared to take that very sensible concrete step forward and evaluate the effect? We all want to know what the effect will be of this amendment to the Misuse of Drug Act. What will happen to young people and drug use in New Zealand? It is a very important question.

My colleague has proposed a way forward, which, unfortunately, was not successful. The Minister will be a Minister for only another 4 or 5 months, but I would like to think that in that short time he will take seriously the issue of a review of the Misuse of Drugs Act and not merely walk away from this very important issue.

I do not rely only on the advice of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs, which meets in Wellington, because—although the committee is worthy—actually the problem arises all around New Zealand. I pop into drug shops, where I am welcomed with open arms—nearly with open arms—because I am interested in the issue and do not shy away from it. Recently I was in Nelson with my very good colleague Dr Nick Smith, and in two of the three pill shops in Nelson—pills are freely available on the main street of Nelson—we asked the shop assistants how they felt about the oncoming banning of benzylpiperazine and its reclassification under the Misuse of Drugs Act. These shop assistants said they did not care. They said they were going out of business in these pills anyway, and that they did not use the pills, because they were dreadful things. So the prevailing attitude in the sample I did—and I speak of Nelson but there are other centres where I go into pill shops—is that the sooner we get rid of these drugs the better. This is from the people who sell them. Mind you, it is not from the people who are making millions of dollars out of the sale of benzylpiperazine, but these are the people who are taking a wage from it.

We need to remember that in delaying the passage of this bill, in delaying addressing this issue, we have created a market for these recreational drugs. In the 2½ years since I have been a member of Parliament, interested in this issue, and trying to engage with the Minister over this issue, and in the 6 to 7 years that these pills have been on the market, this market has been developing. We have a market in New Zealand that is worth $30 million a year. That is a lot of money; that is big, big business. By delaying the passage of this bill we have—and the Minister, who must take the responsibility for this, has—created a market in New Zealand. There are drugs just offshore and drugs being manufactured in New Zealand that will fill that market. I suggest that this is basic principles of marketing, and for me it is another cause of regret.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) : I will take just a short call on Part 2, “Amendment to Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2005”, and schedules 1 and 2.

I just make the comment that one of the great concerns that the Health Committee was faced with back in 2003-04 was the extraordinary dexterity with which manufacturers of illicit drugs would move when a drug was put on to the schedule; the manufacturers would immediately think of another isomer, or add on another molecule, to make the drug different and therefore legal. I am very interested to see the work of the committee members to try to cover as many of the derivatives of benzylpiperazine (BZP) as they could think of, and the combinations and permutations of them that could be manufactured. Schedule 1 encapsulates not just benzylpiperazine but “TFMPP … pFPP … MeOPP … mCPP … MBZP”, as well as the “isomers of the substances mentioned”, the “esters and ethers of the substances mentioned in clause 2”, the “salts of [those] substances”, and “Substances containing any proportion of a substance mentioned in clause 2, 3, 4, or 5.” Indeed, the committee has tried very hard to predict where the industry might try to make a preparation that would avoid the legislation. I think that is very important. The rapid rescheduling mechanisms were brought into the House back in 2003 and 2004 to go for the more serious types of drugs—in particular, methamphetamine, Ecstasy, etc. There is no doubt that if one brings in this sort of legislation, it is very important to cover all the possibilities that the sharp minds of illicit manufacturers may extend to. I think that is very important.

I reiterate that it is a pity that the Minister does not support there being a review in 2½ years of the effects of this legislation. He dismisses the fact that the consequences of this legislation could be profound. I would be delighted if, as the Minister suggested, the scenario was that BZP, its derivatives, and party pills in general faded from the market in New Zealand. Sadly, it is highly unlikely that will happen. That is why I thought it was so important that Parliament be required to relook at this measure in a couple of years’ time. It should not rely on the Minister coming up with a review of the Misuse of Drugs Act. He has had an opportunity over the last 8 years to carry out a review, but he has miserably failed to.

• Part 2 agreed to.