JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) : I seek leave to table my bill set down for consideration, which is the Family Proceedings (Paternity Orders and Parentage Tests) Amendment Bill.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? No objection.

• Question time resumed.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) : I move, That the Appropriation (2006/07 Financial Review) Bill be now read a second time.

• Bill read a second time.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister for Building and Construction: I move, That the Building Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This bill will improve the clarity and effectiveness of the regulatory reforms set up under the Building Act 2004. The Building Act was introduced in response to the systemic issues that led to major building failures in the 1990s, and, in a wider sense, to an expectation of re-establishing our world-class reputation for quality-built buildings. The regulatory costs around the new schemes in the Act reflect the necessary rebalancing of a building control system that had fewer upfront costs and controls, but will potentially cost $1 billion to $2.2 billion for the downstream costs of repairing thousands of leaky homes. By introducing more robustness and accountability into the process at the front end, we are ensuring that buildings will be built right the first time, and that costs will be lower over the lifetime of a building. This Government will continue to work on refining this risk-cost balance with the sector.

In response to claims that the Building Act creates unnecessary bureaucracy and costs, I note that the World Bank’s Doing Business in 2008 report includes a section that compares the regulatory requirements and costs to businesses of building a warehouse. On this measure we are ranked in second place, while Australia is ranked 52nd out of 178 countries.

I thank the Social Services Committee, which is chaired by Russell Fairbrother, for its excellent work. There have been a number of minor amendments, and these should help in producing a workable piece of legislation. I thank the Minister for Building and Construction’s predecessor, the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, for introducing the bill, and I thank the interest groups and those who made submissions on the bill. I am pleased to commend the Building Amendment Bill to the House.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : This morning’s Dominion Post contains this headline: “Building costs putting homes ‘beyond reach’ ”, and the article states: “The cost of building an average-size house has sky-rocketed in the past seven years—from $232,000 to $422,000.” That is an increase in the cost of building an average house of $190,000, and the question that National members ask about the Building Amendment Bill is whether it will address the housing affordability crisis. The answer is that it will not. The answer is that it will make the problem worse.

There are two major changes in this bill. The first of those is around the very complex system that the Government has imposed on councils in respect of their being accredited as building consent authorities. We have a bloated Government bureaucracy called the Department of Building and Housing. It has gone from having 30 staff to having nearly 500 staff, and it is now trying to impose the same sort of bureaucracy on councils.

I was interested to note that the Government has just congratulated the Rodney District Council on its new building consent process. If anyone wants to build, or even put in a drain, in Rodney there is now a 110-page form to fill out, and this bill reinforces the sort of mad, bureaucratic imposition that this Government has put on the building industry. But it goes further.

This bill seeks to retrospectively dump on councils and homeowners the costs of that accreditation process. That is in complete contradiction to everything that New Zealanders are saying in the area of what this bill attempts to do. We had, only 12 months ago, a rating inquiry into the extra costs that central government was imposing on councils, and that rating inquiry said that the Government needed to stop passing these sorts of laws. They give the capacity for the Department of Building and Housing to dump its bureaucratic costs on to councils, and councils have absolutely no choice but to cough up and pay. National says that that is wrong. National says that this bill is adding to the huge increase in rates that is driving New Zealanders, up and down this country, mad.

There is a second set of changes in this bill that National further objects to. It is just so typical of the red tape and bureaucracy that Labour is imposing on New Zealanders. There was a time when the Labour Party celebrated the heritage of Norm Kirk, who built his own house in Kaiapoi. But what does this bill do? This bill means that young, aspiring New Zealanders will be prohibited by red tape from being able to build their own houses. Again, National says that it was not the do-it-yourself builder who brought about the leaky home crisis; it was dodgy developers, it was poor council process, and it was the issues around untreated timber and building products. It was not the do-it-yourself builders. Norm Kirk would be rolling in his grave to know that the Labour Party is today reinforcing legislation that will say to New Zealanders that they cannot build their own houses. Well, I say to New Zealanders that National is on the way back, and we will restore the rights of New Zealanders to build their own homes.

I will now go to the report that has been produced by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, dated March 2008 and released yesterday. This report says that building costs are skyrocketing, and that homes are now further away from being affordable for families than at any time in our history. The report notes that there has been the biggest fall in homeownership rates since census data began in 1892, and this Government has the worst record of any Government in the 116 years since, in respect of home affordability. The report further notes that the biggest fall in home affordability is in relation to those aged between 25 and 35. Those are the young aspiring New Zealanders, and it is little wonder that 70,000 of them are abandoning this country and building their futures in other parts of the world when there is this sort of escalation in housing costs.

What is even more important is what this report says about what needs to be done to improve housing affordability. It says that lower costs of sections and construction are the most likely way of Government policy achieving a long-term reduction in housing costs, and that reforms need to be made in the streamlining of the regulatory systems, especially around the Resource Management Act and the building consent process. National members say: “Hear, hear! That is what we have been arguing about with the Resource Management Act and the Building Act, until we have almost lost our voices, for 8 or 9 years.” What, then, has the Government done after reading that official Government report? It has moved the third reading of the Building Amendment Bill, which adds even further to those very building costs that are causing the crisis.

Let me outline for the House the sorts of things that this bill means for communities around New Zealand. The building consent fees in Nelson City have just been put up by 15 percent. In the Tasman district next door they have been put up by 37 percent. In Dunedin City building consent fees have been put up by 67 percent. In this very city, the Wellington City Council has noted that 4 years ago it used to take three A4 plans and 20 pages of documentation to get a building consent for the average house. The new Act will require 12 A4 plans and 200 pages of documentation to get a building consent for that house. That is outrageous. That is paperwork gone mad, and this bill furthers that problem.

National opposes this bill because it does absolutely nothing to address the housing affordability crisis we have in New Zealand. We have the second worst home affordability in the OECD, and our homeownership rates are plummeting. That great Kiwi value of the average family being able to own their own home has been ruined by this Government and by this sort of legislation. We have a building sector that is in crisis, and we have builders leaving the country because they have had it with this sort of bureaucracy.

This bill should be rejected. We need to go back and amend the Building Act 2004 to bring the red tape and the bureaucracy back under control. We need to drive building quality by putting the commercial tension on the building industry to make sure that it is financially responsible for its building products and for the design, inspection, and construction of homes in New Zealand. This bill does nothing of the sort, and it should be rejected by this House so that we might be able to get some policies that actually improve home affordability in New Zealand.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) : Once again we have heard the member who spoke previously, Dr Nick Smith, criticising and being incredibly critical, and using the old National mantra about there being increased bureaucracy in councils. We heard all about that last night. We heard the myths and legends that that party created around the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill, and we hear them now in this case, when we are looking at the Building Amendment Bill. We are actually looking at ensuring that there is more accountability, more safety, and—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: More costs.

LYNNE PILLAY: —more investment, actually, in the industry.

Let us look at the real story and facts around homeownership. Has there been a reduction in homeownership rates? Yes, there has. That is happening in every developed country, and this Labour-led Government is now finding ways to address that. How are we doing that? We have introduced the Welcome Home Loan scheme, which has helped well over 3,000 Kiwis get into their first home. The National Party, of course, did not vote for that legislation; it voted against it.

In terms of our KiwiSaver scheme, which is something that we will see the benefits of in years to come, the good thing is that not only is it a wonderful scheme for getting people involved in saving for their superannuation but also it is of really tangible assistance to first-home buyers. How does it work? I can see John Carter looking puzzled. John Carter’s mum would be very interested in this. His party did not support KiwiSaver, and why not? I find that really tragic. It offends me to the hilt.

But what is so great about the KiwiSaver scheme is that once people have saved for 3 years or more to buy their first home, they can take out those savings and use them as a deposit on a house. A tax credit from the Government and the employers’ contribution, which will be starting in April of this year, will also go into the deposit. On top of that, those people will get $1,000 gifted towards that deposit from the Labour-led Government after a maximum of 5 years. So let us look at it. A young couple, or an older couple, who want to buy a house and who are part of KiwiSaver get their savings, the tax credits from the Government, the employer contribution, plus an extra $10,000 to put towards buying that house. That is helping our homeownership rates, and that is what this Government is about.

We are also introducing a shared equity scheme, and that will be rolled out in the very near future. That will assist in the future our families, our people, to own their own home. We are also introducing new legislation that will assist the process—assist the bureaucracy, as the National Opposition would say—and look at the construction of medium-priced homes in communities, so that low to middle income families can afford to buy their own home.

Whilst we are talking about housing, let us look at Hobsonville.

Bob Clarkson: What a disaster.

LYNNE PILLAY: “What a disaster.”, the member says, about a development that will deliver 3,000 houses. Which member had the cheek to stand and oppose that development at public meetings? “I do not want Housing New Zealand Corporation houses. I do not want low to medium density housing on my patch. Oh no, not in Hobsonville!”. Who was that member? It was the very slippery Mr John Key—“Slippery John”. We have not heard from John, and it will be interesting to know whether he will take a call on this today to answer our questions on this. Mr John Key, the leader of the National Party, opposed that development happening in Hobsonville, and he wound up a storm about affordable housing in his own electorate. I say, shame on him.

Whilst we are on the subject, let us talk about why we have problems in the building industry. I heard Nick Smith talk about dodgy developers. Which Government deregulated that industry? Which Government scrapped the Apprenticeship Act? Which Government said: “Hey, we do not really need apprentices. We will not support apprentices any more.”? It was the previous National Government. We had the loss of those skills and tradespeople, so many of whom were in the building industry—we are looking at building, here—and they were just part of a declining mass of workers under the National Government.

I am really proud that this Government has reintroduced apprenticeships. We are now seeing far more young apprentices and older apprentices getting skills and training in those vital areas of construction and manufacturing, and our country is all the richer for it.

The Building Amendment Bill is about ensuring that quality homes and buildings meet New Zealanders’ needs, and it re-establishes our reputation for world-class quality construction. The Building Act was significant legislation in 2004, and it was expected at the time that it would need updating to maximise its effectiveness. With more robustness and accountability into the process, at the top end, where it matters, we will ensure that our buildings are built correctly the first time, that costs will be lower over the lifetime of the building, and that the stress and anxiety homeowners experience will simply not be there, or certainly will not be as much of a stress and a challenge as it has been in the past. We will continue to work on refining the risks and the cost balance when we are building, and within the building sector.

I am really proud to commend this bill to the House. I know that it does go a long way towards what we want to see. I know that it gives more certainty to those people who are building their first home, or building a home per se. It also gives certainty to those people who are buying a home that they know they are getting a quality product, that the work has been done, and, as Nick Smith would say, that the bureaucracy has been carried out. They will have more certainty that they have a more professional product, and they will not face the stress and anxiety they faced under the policies that that National Party over there introduced when it was in Government. I commend this bill to the House.

BOB CLARKSON (National—Tauranga) : I would love to spend an hour talking about Hobsonville, but I had better keep off that as I would rather talk about the bill. One has to earn about $120,000 a year to be able to afford a house in Hobsonville. It is a disaster waiting to happen.

I am happy to talk about this amendment bill. In private enterprise the secret of success is to find the problem before we fix the problem. The Minister for Building and Construction is following on from eight former Ministers in not finding the problem. This Minister still wants to licence tradesmen carpenters. The problem was caused mainly by using faulty materials. Would it not be a good idea to fix the problem? Tradesmen carpenters were not the main reason for leaky homes. I say we should fix the problem.

This amendment bill goes nowhere near fixing the problem. We are still building leaky houses. The Minister might not understand when I say that we are still face-fixing cladding on to houses. This allows no air to circulate. Why have we not made cavity walls compulsory, to let some air through and keep them dry? Licensing tradesmen carpenters, as we are doing in this amendment to the Building Act, does nothing to fix leaky homes or stop leaky homes from being built. All this bill does is add a $2,000 licensing fee on to the cost of a house. I do not think that is a very bright idea.

I would like to mention that I am a tradesman in another field. I am proud to be a tradesman, and I do not need to be licensed. I am a tradesman and I have the right to do what my trade says. The previous Minister for Building and Construction, Clayton Cosgrove, and the present Minister, Shane Jones, keep pushing the amendment to license tradesmen.

The Minister should concentrate on fixing the problem—I come back to that all the time. In the building industry we have been using timber treatment methods that are causing serious health problems. People who are working on building sites throughout New Zealand are getting nosebleeds, coughing up blood, and getting serious rashes on their bodies. I would think that the health of a carpenter would be more important than bringing in an amendment to faulty legislation. There have been four goes at this now, and they have all failed.

The Labour Government has known for 18 months about health problems in this industry to do with the treatment of timber, and it has done nothing. Changing Ministers has not helped the problem. Perhaps they do not like talking to each other.

One amendment to the bill talks about supervising restricted building work. A DIY builder will have to have a licensed building practitioner to oversee his or her work. Why would we want a system whereby DIY builders build a house, a building practitioner checks the work, and then an inspector from the council re-inspects the work? This is top heavy in a bureaucratic system.

We just need top-rate inspectors, and houses will be right. What building practitioner will sign off somebody else’s work without charging a high fee or taking out insurance against the risk of doing that job? All these costs will go on to the final cost of a house. My prediction is that with all these amendments and rules, costs will go through the roof. We will not be able to build houses, because of the price. One good thing about that is we will not have any more leaky homes.

DAIL JONES (NZ First) : New Zealand First supports the Building Amendment Bill, which is largely a technical amendment to the Building Act and has special provisions with regard to dams. Various issues about building have been raised during the course of this debate. I just want to make the point that New Zealand First sees the solution to building problems, especially with large building projects, as being similar to that adopted in many other countries, which is to ensure that when any large builder is involved in a large building contract, he or she takes out insurance in order to ensure that if anything goes wrong, the subsequent buyer will be protected. That is New Zealand First’s policy. I hope Mr Clarkson will care to think about that, because obviously there is no one more concerned to make sure that a job is done properly than the insurance company itself. It will make sure that things go through properly, and that we will not have leaky homes and the like.

But, of course, why do we have leaky homes? I was here in the House when the weathertight homes legislation and the Building Bill were introduced. We have leaky homes because of the sloppy practices that developed in the 1990s when the previous National Government, regrettably, decided that everything was free enterprise and the market would prevail. We ended up with cheap materials and, consequently, leaky homes resulted. This bill is an effort to add to the amending legislation that has tried to stop that from happening again in the future—that is what it amounts to.

I am very interested in the matters that have been raised about council costs. I am sure that Mr Clarkson would be the first to agree that sometimes councils take advantage of changes in regulations to rip off the builder, to rip off the homeowner, and to add things to the building consent costs that they then blame on the Government, but that are really a way for councils to put more money in their pocket for things that are not really related to the actual construction of the home itself.

For example, in a case that I was looking at, a young person was told that the council charged a financial contribution to offset the effect of development. Initially, that cost was $5,000 in 2000, but recently it has increased to $30,000. It has nothing to do with the building consent application, nothing to do with the plans and suchlike, but is a total rip-off, in my view, on the part of councils, right around the country, that are blaming the respective Governments of the day. That happens irrespective of whether National, Labour, New Zealand First, or some other party is in Government. Councils do their best to rip off people by saying that the cost is all the Government’s fault, but really it is part of the councils’ ruse to put some money in their pocket, which they then use on various other council projects.

I had an example the other day of someone who was trying to put in a granny flat at a place in Takapuna, and he had to apply to the North Shore City Council. He informed me that before he had even started building and getting his building consents and suchlike under way, the North Shore City Council wanted to charge him $83,000 for a granny flat to be put in a home that used to house five people. The home now has only two people in it and there will be only one more person living there, the granny. But for some reason or other, in order to be able to let granny live there in a granny flat, that person had to put in $83,000 up front before he could even get into the resource consent and building consent processes required for the building work on the house.

The issue of costs lies to a large extent in councils’ policies of creaming off money from people and blaming that on the Government of the day, irrespective of which party might be in Government. That has to be closely considered by all parties when they look at councils’ budgets and when councillors come up for election in the years ahead. I think that part of the problem is that new councillors on councils just follow the advice of the officials, who blind them with science. The councillors go ahead and allow rules to get through, without fully appreciating what is happening, because all those people with high diplomas in planning—bachelors of this and masters of that—confuse and blind many new councillors, and councillors generally, in local authorities.

I was interested in what has been happening in Hobsonville, because I lived in Hobsonville for 18 years and I have worked in the area, one way or another, since 1975. I was very disappointed with the attitude adopted by Mr John Key when he changed his mind on what was to happen in Hobsonville. I will be watching very closely the developments in Hobsonville, because I still think that it is an economic disaster to build 3,000 homes on some of the prime land in Auckland, as is proposed. I think that policy has to be considered closely, and I disagree entirely with John Key’s change of view on the Hobsonville area. As a person who goes by that land regularly and who knows the land extremely well, I will be keeping a close watch on it, as I did before when I was the member of Parliament for the area.

The Housing Corporation used to love to put State houses in the Hobsonville area. I said to the Minister of Housing one day that I was quite happy to have two State houses in my electorate for every one that he had in his. That actually stopped the building of State houses in my electorate. Sometimes one has to put those issues to Ministers of Housing in a cold, blunt way, and that improved the situation in Hobsonville and West Harbour. The reason why we do not have so many State houses in that area today is that I really put my foot down on the matter when I was a member of Parliament between 1975 and 1984.

As far as John Key’s view on Hobsonville is concerned, I see that he is agreeing now to have wide-scale housing, and housing that is possibly not of the highest quality, on the best-quality land in New Zealand. I am also concerned that he may have changed his mind on a commercial airport being built in Whenuapai. I am totally opposed to a commercial airport being built in Whenuapai, and I wonder whether John Key has also had a change of heart on that issue. I would hope that the Whenuapai airport people get in touch with John Key to make sure that has not been another change of mind on his part.

This bill is essentially technical legislation, as I have said. Because it touches on such an important issue, obviously there is a tendency towards a wider-ranging debate than might normally be the case, and I have just taken this opportunity to answer some of the questions that have been raised. New Zealand First supports the bill.

JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) : I firstly say that it just shows how important Government members think this bill is when they have one Minister come and speak on the bill—the Minister of Finance, who actually has no idea about the building industry, at all. He would struggle to build a dunny in a bush, quite honestly. He would not know which end of the nail to put into the wall, yet he spoke on the bill for about 2 minutes. Then we had a Government member, who, I understand, is retiring but does not have a trip yet, and she spoke on the bill. And that seems to be the Government’s contribution in defence of this bill. That just shows how important Government members think it is. It is surprising, is it not, that the Minister in charge of the bill has not yet come down to speak on it? He may well do, and we are looking for that contribution. I will look forward to it but I am disappointed; I would have thought that that Minister would have wanted to lead this debate. So we are looking forward with some pleasure to his contribution.

The second thing I will say is that I listened closely to the contribution made by Dail Jones, and I just want to remind him about the time he was here in the House. I was reflecting on whether he was actually in the House in 1990. I have a funny feeling that he was not.

Dail Jones: No.

JOHN CARTER: He was not. I thought I heard him say that he was in this House—

Dail Jones: 2002.

JOHN CARTER: Oh, it was 2002, of course. Well, the member certainly was in the House at that time. I knew that he had been in the House earlier, but I could not remember just how much earlier. I think it was up until 1984, from memory, and then he came back in 1999.

Dail Jones: 2002.

JOHN CARTER: Oh, in 2002 he came back—right. Then he resurrected himself again, and here he is. But he made the point about the whole issue of responsibility and where it should lie. There is a simple answer, and soon we will make clear what it is.

I will pick up on one point the member made. He talked about the North Shore City Council and about the fact that some unfortunate person had been levied $83,000, I think he said. I cannot speak on the particulars of that case, but it is true that the North Shore City Council was certainly charging way above what it should have been charging. The member may know that that council was taken to court, and there is now case law that stops that sort of activity. Most local authorities have not charged at that level; most local authorities have been responsible. The North Shore City Council was made an example of and has now had to reduce its whole charging regime, and that has set an example for local government across the country. Local government has actually picked it up.

The real problem—and this is the dilemma—is that what is happening, and what will happen even further, is that this bill is loading costs on to councils, it is loading costs on to builders, and it is loading costs on to homeowners. That is where the tragedy is. Even worse is the fact that the bill is not just loading on costs, rules, and regulations but it is not addressing the problem. In fact, this is the fourth time this Government has endeavoured to fix the problem. The tragedy is that the Government has the Department of Building and Housing, which, the last time I looked, employs 385 people, but that number has probably gone up—

Bob Clarkson: It’s 500 now.

JOHN CARTER: No, I cannot believe it is 500.

Bob Clarkson: It was in the media this morning.

JOHN CARTER: The member is kidding me! No, 500 people cannot be employed there; that is not possible. It was only 385 a couple of weeks ago. Oh, I suppose anything is possible under this Labour Government. The point is that most of the people who are there to advise the Government have not got much, if any, background in the building industry itself, and they misunderstand it.

Chris Tremain: Are these people builders?

JOHN CARTER: Well, some of them are builders; most of them are not. They would line up with Michael Cullen and have about as much expertise in building as he has.

Bob Clarkson: Sorry, John, were you talking about the ones who work in the department or the ones who are employed there?

JOHN CARTER: I am talking about just the ones who are employed in the department.

Bob Clarkson: Oh, not working?

JOHN CARTER: No. Here we go again with these speakers; something is echoing.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): No, I think it is your constant turning round.

JOHN CARTER: The tragedy is that we have this department that writes these rules and regulations, causing great costs in the industry and in fact even ensuring that some people will exit the building industry because they cannot stand all the rules and regulations. The local authorities have to match them, so the bureaucracy in the local authorities has increased significantly—25 percent in the last 9 years. Of course, that also adds in extra costs. If the system were working, then maybe one could defend it. But the real problem is that this bill is the fourth attempt at addressing the problem but it is not addressing it. We are still building leaky homes in this country today. Not only have we got the leaky home problem that we know about—and it is estimated and registered at the moment that that involves about 3,200 homes, but it is guesstimated that somewhere between 15,000 and 30,000 homes may well be found to be leaky in due course—but we are building more leaky homes today. That is the real tragedy; we are actually building more leaky homes right now. That is the problem. We have not fixed the problem. The Government has not fixed the problem. All it is doing is making more rules and regulations.

Some common sense should be applied instead of our saying to local authorities and ratepayers “You are responsible for the failure of building.” That is what happens: local government ends up being responsible when a building fails because the builders have generally exited the scene, the architects have usually gone, and the suppliers of materials cannot be pinged, so the last person standing is the local council. Of course, the council’s insurance company says to it: “Well, we will be a bit careful about how we back you on this.”, and the burden ends up going on to ratepayers. So ratepayers have become responsible for the failure of building in this country, and that is just wrong. It should not be the case. But this Government is not prepared to accept that. It says: “Oh well, if that is how it is, because councils have some role in inspecting these buildings, and therefore have some certification, councils should be the ones that are finally responsible. If there is no one else, we will load it on to ratepayers.” Quite honestly, that is just fundamentally wrong. It should not happen.

We should be saying to the Minister, and to the Department of Building and Housing: “Find a way of putting the responsibility back on to the building industry.” I can tell members that the building industry itself is asking to be made responsible for its buildings. It wants to be responsible for its buildings; it does not want all the rules and regulations. Those in the industry, or most of them, are quite capable of building good, sound, non-leaky—what is the word I am looking for?

Colin King: Weatherproof.

JOHN CARTER: —weatherproof; I thank the member very much—homes. They are quite capable of building something that is not only weatherproof but will last. Whether it is “weathertight” or “weatherproof” it does not matter; it will stop the blasted rain getting in. That is what we are talking about.

Most of those people in the building industry are quite capable. There are some tremendously skilled people in the industry. We should allow them to get on with the job. What we are doing instead of allowing that to happen is putting rules, regulations, and restrictions in their road that stop them actually getting on with the job.

I say to the Government that this bill will go through—unfortunately. It will add to the pile of red tape. It will add to costs and bureaucracy, because the Government will now have to put out more rules and regulations as a consequence. The Department of Building and Housing will already be out there—all 358, 500, or however many there are—writing rules and regulations. Local authorities will then have to read them and will have to try to employ somebody else to implement them.

Colin King: Some expert.

JOHN CARTER: Well, the trouble is that we have run out of experts; it will be just anybody who happens to be hanging around. I can see there might be some people leaving Parliament who might get a job in the Department of Building and Housing or in local government. Unfortunately, the tragedy of this situation is that the bill will not work. It will continue to fail. The builders know it will fail. I am sure that in their heart of hearts the people in the Department of Building and Housing know that it is not working. Certainly, the Minister in charge of this bill—if one speaks to him very carefully—will say it is not working. But unfortunately his Government is saying that this is the route down which we have to go. There is a bit of good news, however, that people will find out shortly, when they get a National Government and we fix this problem.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) : I rise to say that the Green Party is very pleased to be supporting the Building Amendment Bill.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa e te Whare. I am pleased to take a call on this Building Amendment Bill. During the debate I have been thinking about who will benefit from this legislation. Although I know this House would be fascinated, I am not going to spend any time today on discussing the 45 minor amendments and technical drafting corrections related to the future setting of accreditation fees.

The bill makes minor changes to the Building Act 2004 that will improve the workability of the current regulatory framework. I want to spend some time on clause 10. This clause amends the content requirements for project information memoranda to include the need to have a statement on how buildings are complying with the disability access provisions of the building code. It reminds builders of the compliance requirements relating to access and facilities for people with disabilities.

It is more and more common that at any gathering of tangata whenua there will be a group of people whom we might refer to as the “Walking Frame Club”. I am talking about those of our people who are impaired or affected by conditions related to diabetes, gout, gangrene, hip fractures, hip and knee replacements, arthritis, and other factors that could slow us down—too much kina and pāua, they say. This bill is a step in the right direction for the “Walking Frame Club”. For far too many tangata whenua with disabilities, independence is compromised by buildings and access points that are simply too difficult to negotiate. Jutting edges, uneven surfaces, and obstacles make access to a building difficult.

It is great that the bill requires project information memoranda to include a reminder about access provisions for disabled people. This is of particular interest to us in the Māori Party as we know that for tangata whenua, adult disability rates are higher than national rates. One-third of Māori aged between 45-64 years report a disability, compared with one-quarter of the total population.

The litmus test of any access provisions is if the target groups respond positively. It was pleasing to see the National Assembly of People with Disabilities and CCS disability action support the amendments in the bill. Clause 10 provides for the requirement to show how buildings are complying with the disability access provisions of the building code, and that has to be good.

The other point I raise is around the process being followed in this House in supposedly improving the workability of the 2004 Building Act. We know that on the basis of the 30 submissions received, generally there has been strong support across the relevant industry groups. However, we also know that many of those 30 submitters raised concerns. The problem is that because there is no commentary on these issues in the Social Services Committee report to Parliament, it is very difficult to ascertain what issues have been addressed through recommended changes to the bill, what issues have been discussed but did not result in any recommended changes to the bill, and what issues have not been addressed at all.

Let me share an example. Concerns were raised by the Registered Master Builders Federation about the watering-down of the definition of restricted building work. Its view was that the weasel words made the building licensing scheme less practical and less certain. An amendment was then recommended by the committee that would seem to address these concerns, but it is difficult to ascertain its effect or how it is qualitatively different from the current wording in the Act given there is no commentary in the select committee report. The amendment specifies that restricted building work is building work that is critical to the integrity of a building—for example, its envelope and structure. One would think that the intention would be to make the definition more precise, yet the key words “critical” and “integrity” are not defined. That is pretty ironic given the purpose of the bill is to clarify the language and the rules relating to the licensing of building practitioners. The people working in the building industry need straightforward information on what licensing is about and what it will mean for them, and it needs to be in terms that do not leave any doubt.

In summary, let me build—excuse the pun—on the concepts I have raised. As a non-builder, I would be reliant on a licensed building practitioner to nail down a definition for me that one could hammer home. If the words “critical” and “integrity” are part of the foundations of a building practice, concepts that have a clear trade meaning, one would have thought it would be useful to define them in the glossary of this bill. If the basic architecture of the bill is “floored”, and paints us into a corner because of the cracks in understanding, no amount of putty applied during this late stage of the debate will seal it for us. We in the House need to step up.

R Doug Woolerton: Excellent!

TE URUROA FLAVELL: I thank Mr Woolerton. The concern for us, as a smaller party that does not have membership on the Social Services Committee, is that we are not in a good position to evaluate whether the amendments suggested are in keeping with the advice received. We want a level playing field—thank you for laughing, Madam Assistant Speaker; I appreciate that. We would have thought that the whole debate was a window of opportunity for framing some alterations to keep the builders building happily ever “rafter”, but is hard to see the wood for the trees in the final report of the select committee.

We have to, however, measure these issues up against the total design of the adjustments that will improve the safety of any future dam constructions, clarify the legal liability and accountability of licensed building practitioners, and give more detail around building consent exemptions. In drawing our comments to a close, we in the Māori Party will support this bill to ensure that we have appropriate diagrams and plans for success in the building and construction industry.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Hon Jim Anderton (Associate Minister of Health): I move, That the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This bill removes the legal market for so-called party pills that contain the drug benzylpiperazine, commonly referred to as BZP, and also related substances. Today I would again thank all members of the Health Committee for their valuable work on this bill. They had to tackle a complex public health and justice issue within a tight time frame. I know that the majority of us here understand the need to move as quickly as is practicably possible to respond to the harms associated with the misuse of psychoactive substances, and a proper evidence-informed process has been followed in the case of BZP.

This House will be aware that in 2004 the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs informed us that although there was insufficient evidence available at that time to justify a ban on BZP, there was a need to place some controls on the sale and advertising of BZP while further information into its effects was gathered. The 2005 amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act provided just that, with a new restricted substances schedule allowing for BZP to be sold only to and by people aged 18 years and over, as well as placing controls on advertising and a ban on free of charge distribution of BZP. The enactment of this schedule remains an important achievement and provides New Zealand with a valuable tool to place legislative controls on new drugs that it would otherwise not have sufficient evidence to ban under the Misuse of Drugs Act. BZP and related substances, however, do now have such evidence to warrant a ban, and therefore the continued consideration of this bill is very timely.

This current bill originally had an enactment date of 18 December 2007. However, as members of this House will know, there was a significant amount of work before us at that time and it was not possible to progress this bill any further before the year drew to a close. For this reason it was necessary that a Supplementary Order Paper was drafted to amend the original enactment date of this bill to a new date in 2008. I have been asked why a set date for the enactment of this legislation is necessary and why the enactment could not have been linked to the day after the legislation receives the Royal assent, as is consistent with the majority of other bills we pass into law. The answer is simple: a set date in the legislation provides for certainty around when this classification will come into force. There are a large number of party pill retailers in New Zealand, and having a specific date in the legislation allows for better clarity around the obligations of these retailers under the law. It also provides more clarity to users of BZP and related substances regarding the exact date that the amnesty for possession and use offences will expire.

On advice from the Attorney-General and the Ministry of Health, the date of 1 April 2008 was chosen as this was seen as an appropriate length of time to allow for both the ministry to properly communicate this change in legal status and the industry to comply. I am pleased that the members supported this important Supplementary Order Paper during the Committee stage. The Green Party also chose to introduce an amendment to this House that would have delayed the banning of these substances, deemed by experts to pose a moderate risk of harm, by a further month, until 1 May 2008. The Green Party justified this delay on the grounds that the party pill industry needed more time to facilitate the recall of its products. However, it needs to be noted that in the time since, the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs advised us in December 2006 that available evidence commissioned by this Government now shows that BZP and related substances pose a moderate risk of harm.

There have been two public consultations on the proposals in this bill. There has also been extensive debate in the media, as well as in press releases from the Ministry of Health. No one in this industry, in my view, is able to claim that there has not been sufficient warning of the ban. Furthermore, it needs to be noted that this bill was originally intended to be enacted before the end of last year, and I am advised that some in the party pill industry did recall their products in order to comply with the pending legislation at that time. I have also recently received a letter from one distributor stating that the enactment date of 1 April would indeed allow them time to complete an orderly, thorough, and safe withdrawal of these products from the market. Thankfully this House had the sense to vote down that proposed amendment, which would have continued to expose New Zealanders to these harmful substances for an additional month.

A Supplementary Order Paper was introduced by the National Party, which sought to amend this bill to require the expert advisory committee to review the effects of this classification and report back to the House in 2½ years’ time. In considering this proposal it is important to understand that the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs is mandated under the Misuse of Drugs Act to report to the Minister with responsibility for the National Drug Policy—not to the House of Representatives but to the Minister. I consider that members of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs have enough on their plate already without being subjected to additional pressures from this House. Additionally, the member who put forward the Supplementary Order Paper justified it on the basis that action against illicit drug use needs to be evidence-based. On that view, I agree in full. It is for this reason that our actions on BZP to date have been informed by the best available evidence and the continued advice of the expert advisory committee and the Ministry of Health.

Membership of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs, which has considered BZP on nine separate occasions since 2004, consists of, among others, respected leaders in the fields of pharmacology, toxicology, psychology, community medicine, and addiction treatment. I have always respected the advice of this committee, and I find it concerning that this member would put forward a Supplementary Order Paper to bring into doubt the evidence base behind the bill that we are considering today. Furthermore, and importantly, the Supplementary Order Paper was not necessary as it does not take an amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act to require the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs to reconsider the classification of BZP after this ban comes into effect. The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs is mandated to consider not only new substances as they emerge but also the classification of currently controlled drugs as new research becomes available. I can ask the committee to reconsider BZP at any time, and members of the public can write to the Ministry of Health to request that items such as BZP are considered for the agenda in future meetings of the committee. It is my view therefore that the Supplementary Order Paper proposed by the National Party would have unnecessarily complicated this classification process, should it have received enough votes during the Committee stage to go ahead.

The continued legal availability of party pill products containing BZP and related substances is concerning and cannot possibly be condoned by members of this House when we know that the available evidence indicates a moderate risk of harm. It is for this reason that the bill must be progressed into law. I believe that party pills will virtually disappear from New Zealand following the enactment of this bill. This legislation will remove the 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 it will prevent them from causing the moderate risk of harm that experts have identified. I would like to acknowledge the great work and determination of my colleague the Hon Jim Anderton in nurturing and guiding this bill through the House. I commend this bill to the House and support its passage through its final reading.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) : Can I say, Madam Assistant Speaker, what a pleasure it is to see you in the Chair, and thank you for acknowledging me.

I believe we have come a long way in the 5 or 6 years since benzylpiperazine (BZP) first came on to the market in New Zealand. Before I became a member of this House, BZP-based drugs were commonly referred to as herbal highs or “herbies”, which is what the young people still call them, the perception being that they were herbal and therefore harmless. Of course, that perception was reinforced by the fact that they were legal and largely unregulated. What a long way we have come in those 5 or 6 years. Even in the 2½ years since I have been a member of Parliament I believe that society’s concern and understanding about BZP and its medical and social effects have been crystallised, and today we are finally addressing the issue of BZP by way of the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill.

The bill is very short. It simply changes the classification of the family of drugs known as benzylpiperazine from a class D restricted substance to a class C classification, which is the same as that for cannabis. I think it is appropriate that the classification is the same as that for cannabis, because now the law will recognise that benzylpiperazine and party pills are every bit as dangerous as cannabis. The bill introduces a 6-month amnesty period for the personal use of benzylpiperazine. It also gives the party pill industry advance warning of when the ban is to take place—not on the usual date of when it is signed by the Governor-General but a few days after. The rationale is that this will allow party pill manufacturers and retailers time to take these items off their shelves. That is unnecessary, of course. The industry has known that the writing has been on the wall. For goodness’ sake, the Minister has been going on about it for long enough! The industry, which is a big industry, has had plenty of time to get used to the idea that BZP will at least become illegal, so in my view that consideration was unnecessary. Having said that, we do support the bill.

Benzylpiperazines are already banned in the United States. New Zealand is lagging well behind.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Excuse me, I am sorry to interrupt the member. I ask that we do not have conversations in the House with members standing up. Thank you.

JACQUI DEAN: Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker—you are so considerate. BZP is banned in the United States. BZP and the family of benzylpiperazines are also banned by our close neighbour Australia, as well as Japan, Denmark, and Sweden. One of our exports, which we should not be proud of, is BZP products, which are exported via the Internet to countries like the UK. It is a thriving market. I sincerely hope that that trade is also shut down.

I acknowledge the work of the Health Committee. I understand that with an issue such as this there are divergent views, which are expressed in the committee’s report. The committee members reviewed my petition and also my submission to them. I believe that my point of view was heard, and I am grateful to them for that.

To give just a little bit of information about the benzylpiperazine family, it has become very popular in the last few years due largely to its legal status of being only a restricted drug and, therefore, the perception of its safety. As I said when I first rose to my feet, that perception of safety has been very quickly eroded during the last few years. The family of BZP is mixed to mimic the effects of methamphetamine. It gives users a high, if you like, with exaggerated blood pressure, heart rate, and metabolism. Unfortunately, other side effects—particularly when taken with alcohol and other drugs—can include anxiety, collapse, agitation, nausea, and grand mal seizures. The concern of doctors is well documented—particularly that of Dr Paul Gee of the Christchurch accident and emergency department. He has been concerned for many years over the presentation of patients into his hospital.

The advocates of BZP—and we must remember that this is a $30 million-a-year industry, which is a good little earner—claim that it offers users of illegal drugs a safer alternative, and would therefore displace illegal drug use. Unfortunately for them a university study has disputed this myth. It shows that party pill users are 10 times more likely to be users of LSD, Ecstasy, and Ritalin. So that myth—for that is what it is—has been dispelled. The author of that report, Kate Bryson, concluded that: “In terms of reducing harm by reducing illicit substance use, BZP party pills are not fulfilling their purpose.” For drug users, they are “simply another substance on the … menu.” This conclusion is shared by other researchers, who have noted that an increase in BZP-related presentations to Auckland Hospital did not reduce the incidence of methamphetamine-related presentations. So any myth that BZP reduces the incidence of illegal drug use is just that—a myth.

BZP’s legal status is finally about to change with the imminent passing of this Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill—and I am very grateful for it. I am grateful that the Associate Minister of Health Jim Anderton has finally succumbed to pressure to outlaw this drug. Right back in 2004 the Minister first acknowledged the harm BZP causes, but it has taken 4 years until he has finally brought legislation to Parliament—not without continual lobbying on my part—and today I am very happy to be standing here during the third reading of this bill. Unfortunately a market for BZP and other drugs has grown exponentially in New Zealand, and as legislators we must face the fact that while Parliament has delayed passing this legislation a market has been created, and that market will be filled with other drugs. We also now have a culture whereby many children hold the view that in order to have a good time one must first take a pill. How regrettable is that?

My colleague Dr Paul Hutchison attempted to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper that, I believe, provides a very sensible way forward after the passage of this bill. Dr Hutchison proposed that this legislation be reviewed within 2 years and 6 months of the date of its enactment. Under his Supplementary Order Paper the review of the banning of BZP would have been undertaken by the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs—the very committee that the Minister has relied on so heavily for advice in bringing this bill to the House today. My colleague Dr Paul Hutchison proposed that what is really needed to finish off this bill is to look at the effects it will have. We understand that the Minister is now considering the reclassification of another drug—Salvia divinorum. We do not need another piecemeal approach to this issue. Experience with BZP classification has shown that the Minister is reluctant to act. Several years may go by between the intention to do something about Salvia divinorum and the actual reclassification of this drug. What is needed is a review of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The Minister has promised a review of the Misuse of Drugs Act, but instead we have another piecemeal bill. So in the absence of any policy work on behalf of the Minister that I can see—and I would be very happy to be corrected—we have, yet again, a lot of talk but no evidence of any real work. The amendment proposed by Dr Paul Hutchison would at least have given this Parliament a chance to evaluate the effects of banning BZP.

I will conclude today by reflecting that society has shown a good deal of concern about what has become an open legal drug culture in New Zealand. This bill, which National supports, goes part of the way towards addressing those concerns. I believe that the Minister had the chance to do so much more, but he has failed in that. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Minister of Pacific Island Affairs) : Kia ora, talofa lava, and warm Pacific greetings. It is my pleasure to stand and speak in support of the third reading of the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill.

This bill amends the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 to make it illegal to possess and use, sell, supply, import, export, or manufacture benzylpiperazine (BZP), phenylpiperazine, and related substances. These substances are the active ingredients in the majority of pills commonly known as party pills or herbals. The purpose of this legislation is to prevent the misuse of drugs by controlling harmful substances through the classification of drugs according to their degree of harmfulness.

Party pills—or herbals, as they are also known—came on to the scene in New Zealand around 2000, and their popular use has increased over the years. A walk down Cuba Street or Courtenay Place, or down streets right around our country, illustrates how accessible these pills have become, to our families and our communities, and, more important, to our young people. There are shops dedicated to selling the pills, with dairies, 24-hour service stations, and nightclubs stocking them so that they are readily available. As the popularity of party pills has grown, an increasing number of manufacturers of these products have entered the market.

A 2006 Massey University study found that nearly 60 percent of 20 to 24-year-olds surveyed had tried party pills. As the popularity of these pills increased, real concern was raised over the potential health effects—let alone all the other effects—of these pills. Reports have also shown that a wide range of people are using party pills, from young professionals to senior citizens, who use the pills to make themselves feel more alert or on a high. The party pills are sold under a wide range of product names, and the term “herbals” implies that they are good for people. It is thought that a large number of people use BZP because it is legal and readily available.

I join with my colleagues in congratulating the Hon Jim Anderton on his role in this, and on the public consultation that it has enabled. He has shown real leadership and stewardship of legislation in this area not only with this bill but also with the 2005 Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill. That amendment made it an offence to sell and supply pills to people under 18 years of age or to give away or advertise the pills, thus enabling controls on BZP while research was carried out into this drug.

The classification of BZP, and the harm of the drug’s misuse, have been extensively considered in recent years. This bill has resulted from this research and from a recommendation made to the Minister of Health by the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs that BZP be classified as a class C1 controlled drug—the same as cannabis—under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, as it poses a moderate risk to the health of those using it. In making its classification recommendation, the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs has ensured that its decision is evidence-based, appropriate for New Zealand’s domestic situation, and consistent with international obligations. When introducing the third reading, Minister O’Connor commented that the committee’s composition represented all professional areas, including a representative of those who treat consumers of drugs. Our Government has acted on expert advice and has taken this recommendation very, very seriously, and this bill seeks to give effect to that.

Because party pills have been legally available for a number of years, a 6-month amnesty for those who have less than 5 grams or 100 tablets for their personal use, as opposed to supply, will remain in place from the commencement date of the legislation on 1 April 2008, ending on 30 September 2008. More important, this bill ensures that all New Zealanders are protected from potential harm and from the effects on themselves, their families, and their communities caused by BZP, phenylpiperazine, and related substances, which are the active ingredients in party pills. For that reason, I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) : On behalf of New Zealand First, I rise to support the third reading of the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill. It is my pleasure to rise and support this bill.

This is an issue that needed to be finalised—from the manufacturer’s point of view, the user’s point of view, and, of course, from Parliament’s point of view. Further action needed to be taken; once the wheels had been set in motion the whole situation needed to be clarified. We in this House all know that this is a multimillion-dollar industry, and it had geared itself up for a ban on 18 December. That did not eventuate, and, in fairness to the industry, another specific date has been set. The writing was on the wall. The date that is now set is very clear, it is specific, and there is no room for any misinterpretation.

In New Zealand First we received some information from the Social Tonics Association that recall procedures had been put in place by many manufacturers for the disposal of their existing stock. I understand that these procedures will be put in place again so that the products can be disposed of in a safe and proper manner. It is really important that this is done. It is not a little job to close down a multimillion-dollar industry in a short time; it has been around for 7 years or so. There needed to be sufficient time to do this in a planned manner. I was very pleased to see the professional recall procedures that have been put in place, and I think that the Social Tonics Association can be quite proud of what it has done. The very last thing we need is for this type of product to be dumped in local rubbish bins where it can be pulled out by anyone—and we know that a lot of people fossick around our rubbish cans now. Of course, if it is in a rubbish can, it can also be consumed by anyone, and that is definitely not an ideal situation. Being part of a manufacturing environment in my previous life, I was very pleased to see this responsible response to the recall of these particular products, and the Social Tonics Association and other manufacturers have to be commended for the actions they have taken in drawing up the procedures and for trying to follow them through.

In New Zealand First, we believe that Parliament—this Parliament, any Parliament—has to act on the advice of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs. Otherwise, what is the point of having it and of wasting the advice of the experts on that committee? They are the experts, they have all of the relevant qualifications, and we need to take their advice. When we look at it, they have verified what most of us suspected: this product cannot be guaranteed to be absolutely harmless. Although there are those who say that it is harmless, the bottom line is that there are no scientific studies carried out on this drug by any reputable agency proving that it is safe.

Earlier in the week I went into a pharmacy and was absolutely amazed to see a product that claimed on the header card of the display and on the product as well that it was “Tested on Australians”. I did not want to believe what I was reading. Obviously, Australians are quite happy to be lab rats, or perhaps they were unwittingly lab rats for some company that was testing anti-hangover pills, of all things. I thought this was a really amazing piece of advertising. As a consumer, it would give me no real confidence, at all, that it had been tested on Australians and found to be safe. Yet when I looked at the display, I saw that plenty of the product had been sold. New Zealand First believes that we can be really pleased that party pills have never ever been displayed or advertised with that cavalier attitude, even though, when we look at it, the industry could have said that the product had been “Tested on New Zealanders”.

We realise that unfortunately this legislation will not immediately stop the party pill culture, or the widespread consumption by young people of some other product that promises the same type of high or buzz. Most of our young people who are into this type of drug taking will consume the new product that comes online.

I was talking to an elderly person who blamed all of the baby-boomers and the availability of prescription drugs for this phenomenon. Apparently, we pop pills freely for headaches, depression, earaches, and sore throats, and afterwards we feel quite good that we have actually taken the pills. This person said we were modelling the behaviour for our young people. I thought it was quite a tenuous link, but perhaps she had a point.

As we know, the second generation of party pills is well on the way; we read about it last year in the newspapers. We can only hope that the Social Tonics Association and its members will again take a precautionary approach. However, we definitely do not want to see these substances displayed for sale in dairies and garages.

Hone Harawira: Like cigarettes.

BARBARA STEWART: Like cigarettes. The voluntary code for packaging, quality, and quality control that was developed and largely adhered to by the manufacturers of party pills was a step in the right direction, and we have to hope that it will be followed again.

Over the course of this debate we have often had parties talking about the health effects of alcohol and tobacco, and saying that they are just as bad if not worse than the effect of benzylpiperazine. I have no doubt that we will hear from those speakers later on. In New Zealand First we ask why we would add another substance to this list, if this product had not been banned. Enough grief is caused by alcohol and tobacco. Something had to be done and we are trying to do something here, so we support this bill. It never ceases to amaze me—and, more than likely, others in this House—that manufacturers never had to prove that party pills were safe before they were put out for sale, as happens with food and medicine. We would like to see this loophole corrected.

New Zealand First supports this bill. We are pleased to see it reach this stage, and we will watch what happens in the wider industry with a lot of interest. Thank you.

METIRIA TUREI (Green) : As this House knows, the Green Party policy on these matters is about reducing harm. We are the only party in this House that has a policy premised on a scientific and evidence-based approach to managing drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, which are of course the most damaging drugs in our society and our community. We know that drug use can be problematic. But we know that not all drug use is problematic, and that the law has to deal with these issues on a rational, scientific basis rather than on one based on prejudice and old views.

I was saddened to hear the Associate Minister Damien O’Connor describe in his speech this afternoon the Green Party amendment to this bill. We put up an amendment that would provide small-business people who are running party pill businesses with the time and opportunity to comply with the law. They know that they will need to comply with the change. They want to comply with the law, they do not want to be lawbreakers, and they are not lawbreakers—until the law is passed they certainly are not lawbreakers. They want to have the time to do a good job, especially if they have to reconfigure their businesses, reorganise their finances, fire people who are working for them, and deal with all those concerns.

Minister O’Connor, presumably speaking for Mr Anderton, stood up and said that the Government refused to support our amendment to extend this time period because the businesses—the industry—knew that there was a law coming, and therefore they should have been prepared and that is just tough. That reminded me of a member of Parliament from some years ago, when I was a teenager, who was well known for making law by decree, and it occurs to me to ask whether Jim Anderton is a Muldoon Mini-Me in this respect. Is he a Muldoon Mini-Me who will decide that the law should change, because he thinks it is a good idea, then go out amongst the people and tell them that the law is changing and that he is going to do all this fantastic work, make promises to have the law changed by a particular date, fail miserably to achieve that goal, misinform the public, and have no concerns for the businesses who are quite entitled to rely not on a Muldoon Mini-Me decree but on the law of the House and of the land as it stands?

That is what Mr Anderton did. He should be ashamed and terribly embarrassed by his foolishness. One does not make law by decree in this country. I tell Mr Anderton that this is a democracy, and therefore when the law is in one state, businesses are entitled to rely on it, as is the community. Then, when that law changes, they are entitled to have some time and opportunity to make the changes so that they can comply. We do not need a Muldoon Mini-Me in this House making law by decree for this country.

I was also surprised to hear the Associate Minister say that he believed that this law change would eliminate benzylpiperazine (BZP) from this country, and that there would be no BZP any more in New Zealand, which again highlighted just how utterly irrational his approach to controlling drugs in our country is. Can he point to any single drug ever that has been eliminated from the population in its entirety simply as a result of a law change towards prohibition? Can he?

Heather Roy: No.

METIRIA TUREI: There is silence from the Government benches. The fact is that my colleague Heather Roy is quite right. There simply is no drug that has ever been eliminated from a society simply because it was made illegal. In fact, the evidence shows quite the contrary—that, indeed, drugs proliferate under a regime of prohibition.

Drugs proliferate under prohibition because they are in the control of unregulated entrepreneurs who see an opportunity to make considerable amounts of money out of an illegal substance that there is still an enormous demand for in our community. Who is going to regulate those entrepreneurs? No one. Who is going to control the access that people might have to those entrepreneurs and their new products? Well, one could say the police will do so, but I do not see them doing a particularly fantastic job when it comes to other drugs. Have they eliminated methamphetamine from our society because it is illegal? No, they have failed to do that. The police do not even manage properly to control the legal drugs that are in this country. They do not even properly manage and make sure that young people do not get access to tobacco, for example. So how are the police also expected to eliminate from the community, and from these black markets, clever little entrepreneurs who are now going to engage in the proliferation of BZP to our young people, when they have no capacity at all to talk to them sensibly about the health consequences of what they are doing, the kinds of products they are taking, the damage they could be doing to themselves, and the ways they could keep themselves safe? None of that will be available under this regime, because Mr Anderton and his party are relying on the old, failed policies of the past—the proven failed policies of the past—in making illegal a substance that Mr Anderton could have controlled from the beginning.

Here we go back to Mr Anderton’s failure again. He has always had the power to regulate party pills. Party pills as a class D drug can be regulated. Where they are sold can be regulated. Who they are sold to, and the content of the drugs or of the pills, can be regulated. The packaging and the health information were available to Mr Anderton to control if he chose to do so, but he has failed to control and put in place those regulations in the time that BZP has been legal. I raise serious questions as to why he failed to protect our community when he had the power to do so.

The fact is that he failed to protect our community and our young people, because it was politically useful for him to have no controls so he could justify the continued failed policy of the prohibition of BZP. He put our young people at risk on purpose in order to meet his own political objectives. That is disgraceful behaviour by a Minister. That is particularly disgraceful when one is talking about the health of young New Zealanders. Hundreds and thousands of young New Zealanders are put at risk by Mr Anderton because of his failure to properly regulate and control BZP when he could have done so.

Now that problem has been exacerbated by his continual perpetuation of the myth that prohibition will eliminate these drugs from our society. He has now handed over that control to people who cannot be trusted with the health of our young New Zealanders.

Hone Harawira: Abdicated his responsibility.

METIRIA TUREI: My colleague Hone Harawira is quite right. He has abdicated his responsibility. There is no justification for that position. There is no evidence for that position. It is irrational to take that position. But because this is an issue about drugs, for some reason it is OK for the Government, through Minister Anderton, to take irrational positions on this issue, and to put the lives and the health of young New Zealanders at risk.

Drugs are not so very important, and Mr Anderton should be made aware of this. Drugs are not the most important thing in the world. But drug policy is a litmus test for political parties. Like the issue of law and order, drug issues are used for electioneering purposes, and this is one of those issues. Jim Anderton will go out on the hustings and say that he has protected our young people, but he has failed them—for electioneering purposes. To meet his own personal desires, whatever they may be, Mr Anderton has failed our young people, failed our country, and failed our communities. He is a disgrace.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) : Tēnā koe. Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to congratulate the previous speaker on raising a very valid point about the role of the Minister in protecting society, and pointing out his abdication of that responsibility. What has popped up its ugly little head again in this House of hypocrisy, our Parliament of pretence, and our very own den of double standards? Why, it is none other than the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill. It is known in some circles as Jim Anderton’s “I’m Dull and Boring (And If I Can’t Be Happy, Then Neither Can You Be Happy) Bill” and in other circles as the “They Ain’t Killing Anyone (Let’s Ban Party Pills Because We’re Not Getting Any Money off Them, But Let’s Allow Alcohol and Cigarettes to Continue to Be Legal Because Although They Are Killing Our Kids by the Thousands Every Year, We Get Heaps of Money off Them Through Taxation) Bill”.

One hundred years ago Sir Māui Pōmare said: “Our effort will be in the direction of the eradication of all things which ensure the demoralisation and decay of the Māori—drunkenness, smoking, gambling, sanitation, diseases of animals—all come within the scope of the new crusade. In a word, we seek the regeneration of the Maori, and unless we effect that, our race is doomed. We will do it, we must.” That statement of intent is a crusade that the Māori Party is also dedicated to, and I repeat those words: “… we seek the regeneration of the Māori, and unless we effect that, our race is doomed.” We too reject the way in which alcohol, tobacco, and gambling are killing our people.

The research has been done and the facts are clear. Alcohol, tobacco, and gambling are demoralising our people and killing our families. That is the difference between an addiction to those substances and using party pills. Forests have been cut down to detail the evidence, the data, and the research on the death, destruction, and family mayhem caused by alcohol, tobacco, and gambling. But benzylpiperazine (BZP) and party pills? No, mate—not even. Nowhere near enough evidence has been produced to justify this Draconian ban on party pills, and nowhere near enough thought has been given to alternative ways of handling them. This bill aims to make it illegal to possess, use, sell, supply, import, export, and manufacture BZP, although there is no evidence that party pills kill and maim thousands of New Zealanders every year, in the way that alcohol and tobacco do—every single year; thousands upon thousands of New Zealanders.

To get a bit more background I looked over a paper written by a whanaunga of mine, Dr Lance O’Sullivan of Ngāti Hau. He is currently employed at Te Hauora o Te Hiku o Te Ika, the first accredited Māori health provider in the country. He talked about seeing the impact of alcohol abuse on whānau: the domestic violence, the unwanted pregnancies, the broken families, the fatal driving accidents, the young men and women with heart and liver diseases, and the depression affecting the older generations. This is the day-to-day reality of a legal but lethal drug that this legislature has allowed to ravage our Māori communities for more than 100 years. Even our tūpuna thought so badly of the stuff that they called it waipiro—quite literally, stinking, rotting water. And Dr O’Sullivan does not need to write another paper in order for us to know that tobacco is doing even more damage than alcohol does.

The Māori Party caucus is new, but we have already built up quite a good reputation in the campaigns against tobacco and P, and the destructive effects of alcohol and gambling on Māori communities. We have come from, and we continue to live within, those very communities, and we know what we are talking about when we talk about the effects of alcohol, tobacco, and gambling. We would laugh at the ridiculous efforts being made to ban party pills, except that we are still crying at the lack of attention being given to the addictions that still kill thousands of New Zealanders, Māori and Pākehā, every single year. Let me be clear again. The Māori Party is opposed to harmful drugs, including alcohol and tobacco. We are equally committed to stopping substance abuse. But just because it is election year, that does not mean we should pander to prejudice.

Let us drop the scaremongering and get to the facts. Following on from a 2007 risk assessment report by the scientific committee of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction on the risks of BZP, last week the centre called upon member States to take measures “appropriate to the relatively low risks of the substance”. Those eight member States, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, and Sweden, already regulate BZP under appropriate legislation. We can contrast that with the other statistics of death. Tobacco smoking kills more than 4,600 New Zealanders every year. By 2020 tobacco will kill 10 million people every year worldwide; that is one person every 8 seconds. Thirty percent of young smokers will eventually be killed by tobacco. And here is one for members: tobacco kills more people than the combined number of deaths from alcohol, drugs, murder, suicide, road crashes, air crashes, poisoning, drowning, fires, falls, lightning, and electrocution.

The Victoria University of Wellington Students Association, members of which would be prime users of party pills, supports the increased regulation and control of the manufacturers of party pills, who have targeted the student body through the commercial marketing and on-campus promotion of their products as “energy supplements” with “medicinal properties” and “life-enhancing effects”, or—the most bizarre claim of all—a claim that their pills are “replacement brain-fuel”. The students association says that the industry is the one that should be targeted, not the users, and that reasonable standards should be imposed on the manufacture, distribution, labelling, and advertising of party pills. Yet for all the facts, it would appear that National and Labour are committed to this ban on party pills.

The facts we have gathered reinforce our view, the Māori Party view expressed in the minority report in the Health Committee’s report on the bill, that a strictly enforced, strongly regulated regime with tighter controls, tighter regulations, health warning labels, controlled access, and quality and quantity controls is a far better first step than prohibition. The Māori Party remains staunchly opposed to this bill and passionately in support of the call to seek the regeneration of our whānau, our hapū, and our iwi through dedicated efforts to restore our health and well-being. Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker.

HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) : The ACT party, like the previous two speakers, has made it very clear through the progress of the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill that we oppose it and oppose it vigorously. I congratulate the two previous speakers, Hone Harawira from the Māori Party and Metiria Turei of the Greens, because they are the voices of common sense in our Parliament today.

I think we need to be very careful about what we think we can achieve in this Parliament. As politicians, I feel that we frequently overestimate the effect of lawmaking in matters such as this. I will not go over the discussion on prohibition again, or the alcohol and tobacco debate, but they are very pertinent points. They have already been made very succinctly and well.

We should make no bones about it: prohibition does not work. It has been tried time and time again with absolutely no effect, and all it results in is a thriving black market where substances that are theoretically bad for us reach such inflated prices that they create havoc amongst our communities. That is what we, as politicians, are contemplating putting into place again today. Alcohol and tobacco are the drugs of choice of many people. They are far more dangerous than many other substances we are planning to ban, and that will be the case today with the banning of benzylpiperazine (BZP).

BZP is already regulated, and quite heavily. I have followed the progress of this issue from my introduction to Parliament in 2002. It was shortly after that time that the question arose as to how much BZP should be regulated. In 2002 BZP was not regulated. It was just emerging as a drug of choice for many of our young people. The history is quite interesting. BZP was developed in the 1950s as an anti-worm medication. It was shown to be totally ineffective in that regard, but the side effects of the medication were shown to produce an effect that some people who took the medication liked, and they then used it for that purpose only.

When we bring bills of this nature to Parliament, what exactly is the problem we are trying to solve? That is the question we have to ask ourselves. I have not actually heard that question answered in this Parliament today by any of the parties supporting this legislation. I ask them again, before they vote on this bill, what the problem is that we are trying to solve. If someone can stand up and tell me the answer to that question, then I am prepared to reconsider our stance, but I do not think that anybody can.

All I hear from the Labour members and Jim Anderton are arguments for putting forward this bill in an election year. I think that they are trying to capitalise on the fact that they are pandering to the fears of parents, who have concerns about what their children take, and not just about alcohol. In fact, those members downplay the effects of alcohol and tobacco and focus instead on pills like BZP party pills. So this bill is a bit like the tagging legislation in many respects. Those members are trying to pander to the fear of people in return for a vote in election year.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: What would you do—zip it?

HEATHER ROY: Mr Cosgrove should make no bones about what I would do. I tell Mr Cosgrove that I would leave BZP exactly where it is—as an R18 classification—and I would insist that the law that exists at the moment, the regulation in place, was properly policed. We say to our 18-year-olds that they are old enough to vote and to go off to war but that they are not old enough to say what should go into their bodies, or whether they should have a drink or go and buy a spray-can. [Interruption] We could get started on the boy-racer legislation, I suppose, but I think that it was only the Greens and ACT that took a sensible line on that issue, as well. But I will not be diverted by that.

The law as it exists at the moment is perfectly adequate—that is, to have an R18 classification on BZP tablets, which is then policed effectively. What will happen next? Everybody knows that chemists are very clever people, and they are all ready to go. As soon as BZP is banned, the next wave of substances, which are not yet illegal, will come on to the market and replace it. Mr Cosgrove says they have an answer for that. He will just bring forward a bill every time a new substance comes in. A new bill will come to Parliament, and we will ban the next substance. The next one will be developed, and we will ban that one too. Then the next one will be developed, and we will ban that too. Is that not effective lawmaking! I did not come to Parliament to do that. I came to Parliament to produce a country that I am proud to leave to my children and grandchildren. This sort of lawmaking does not fall into that category.

What will happen next? Well, we are actually empowering the gangs today. We are giving them the ability to become richer and more powerful. We hear all about the gangs from New Zealand First and Labour, and we hear about what Labour will do to stem the gang culture. But what we are doing today is empowering the gangs to make more money. The way to get rid of gangs is to get rid of prohibition, because it is actually the prohibition that enriches the gangs, gives them money, and leads to the violence that we see so much of in New Zealand today. If we really want to have an effect as politicians, then that is exactly what we would do—we would get rid of prohibition. Those members shouting at me from the other side of the House know I am right. They will not stand up and say I am wrong, because they know that what I am saying is right.

Metiria Turei raised the issue that the Minister is acting irrationally—and he is. He is confused in his thinking if he thinks that banning these substances will make one jot of difference to the problems that, again, still have not been articulated. He should take stock of what he is doing today. He should take stock of the fact that this will not affect one thing. Our young people will still take BZP tablets, or they will find something else to take.

Why is no party here today saying that this bill will be the answer to the problem for all our young people? Why are no members standing up here and saying: “Actually, alcohol is a problem. Why don’t we ban that?”. The reason is that they all enjoy their glass of wine and are not prepared to ban it, because they do not want to forgo it themselves. The real answer, of course, is that banning alcohol would not have any effect either. We should be under no illusions about the dangers and illnesses that alcohol and tobacco cause. Today we are hearing irrational arguments for measures that will be totally ineffective.

ACT opposes this bill and opposes it rationally for all the reasons I have just outlined. We will not see any improvement in youth behaviour as a result of this bill today. All we will see is the production of more and more chemical substances that may or may not do harm to our young people. Those substances will be promoted, and the gangs will have even more power and become wealthier than they are now, because of a silly, irrational law, which I am ashamed we are passing today.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister of Immigration) : Before I deal with the issue in respect of the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill, which I wholeheartedly support, I will highlight one of the things the ACT member Heather Roy said. Of course, the ACT party believes in a free market and in live and let live. If we followed the ACT party prescription for everything and its view of the world, then maybe we would legalise every drug—LSD, crack cocaine, the lot. Where would it stop if we were to follow ACT’s belief that we live and let live and have no rules?

That silly member, who scurries around the Chamber, said that benzylpiperazine (BZP) was a medication. I will read out statistics from an eminent medical practitioner in my area, Dr Paul Gee, who is an accident and emergency specialist in Christchurch Hospital. He led a charge—and I congratulate him on it—to prove to silly people like the previous speaker that this stuff should be banned and that it is bad. Why? Because it is harmful. It is not a medication. I take it that the previous member has no medical qualifications.

Paul Gee’s research shows that between 1 April 2005 and 1 September 2005—a 5-month period—61 patients presented on 80 occasions at the accident and emergency department of Christchurch Hospital. Those patients were experiencing a number of symptoms. I do not know whether the member alluded to any of them. Interestingly, 15 toxic seizures were recorded, and two patients suffered life-threatening toxicity. The findings of the study state: “The results of this study indicate that BZP can cause unpredictable and serious toxicity in some individuals.”

I do not know what planet the previous speaker is on, or what stratosphere she orbits in her spare time, but I say that I would trust the evidence of a medical practitioner in an accident and emergency department before I would listen to the claptrap we just heard when a member of Parliament stood up and said that BZP is medication. I support Jim Anderton’s view of the world on this issue. We have to remember that BZP was developed by one Matt Bowden—the sort of godfather of party pills—who, interestingly, I am told, is, or was, represented at an exorbitant cost by the same ethical lawyers and expensive lobbyists whom the Real Estate Institute is now being represented by. Members should work that one out.

Let us be clear about BZP. It is a very sophisticated device. It is a pill for kids. That is whom it targets. That is whom it targets in my electorate.

Hone Harawira: Same with cigarettes.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: That member over there, Mr Harawira, made some very smart comments. I say that respectfully. He made some good points. He said that alcohol and tobacco are legal drugs that do a lot of harm. I accept that. I accept that absolutely. But equally I say to that member that having two bad drugs in the market place does not mean we should add to the list. If we follow that thesis—as I asked that genius from the ACT party, whose leader, as we speak, may well be on BZP—then where do we stop? The ACT party may say “Legalise everything. Who cares? Live and let live.” We cannot get a handle on people using LSD, so the ACT party may say we should legalise it.

I do not subscribe to that point of view; I subscribe to the point of view of the constituent in my electorate who started a petition the day after the Herbal Heaven shop opened in Kaiapoi, which was about a week before the last election. That person does not want to be named, because of some of the disreputable folk who are involved in that industry. I take advice from the police, the acting principal at Kaiapoi High School at that time, drug rehab folk from the Salvation Army, and others, who convene meetings at Kaiapoi High School to reassure parents and educate parents to educate their kids.

There are members who say we cannot legislate for everything and that it is not Parliament’s place to do so. I say this: there are those who look at this place and say that what we do counts. There are those who look at this place and say that if the intent of Parliament is such and the lawmakers say it is OK, then it must be OK. What we do in this place does count. People look and ask what the intent of Parliament was.

I say to the ACT member that she is right on one count: the industry is developing the next generation of party pills. We had a public admission from the godfather of the industry, who has made millions off the back of young people, that the industry is trialling the next generation of party pills, which mimic Ecstasy. What a genius that person is. Would we want a party pill that mimics an illicit drug? What a disreputable thing that is.

Mr Anderton has proposed that we change the onus so that, instead of the Crown and the taxpayer having to prove that some substance on the market brought in by those who want to make millions off the back of our kids, is safe, the manufacturer must prove that it is safe and pay for that proof. It is the reverse onus of proof. I believe that is a very logical position to be in.

I thank the communities in my patch and around the country that stood up and said they were not having a bar of this. I am one politician who says that we should draw some lines in the sand and we should say when things are bad, otherwise the ACT party member’s thesis of life is the law of the jungle. I think it was the ACT member who said that we have not had any deaths yet. I would have thought the smart thing to do is to try to provide prevention, not to have a reaction that says: “Hey, suddenly we have had a death. We should do something about it.”

Hone Harawira: 4,500 every year from cigarettes.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: As I said to Mr Harawira, just because we already have two bad drugs on the market, it does not mean we should add more. We have had those two drugs for centuries—namely, alcohol and tobacco—and maybe if we knew then what we know now about the physical and mental effects of those drugs over generations, we may not have embarked on the legal reforms we have in place now. But that is no excuse to add to the list. I thank people like Dr Paul Gee and people in the various communities around the country, because, on evidence, they have proved that this substance will have, and does have, harmful effects, especially on our young people.

I think it was Jacqui Dean who had a crack at Mr Anderton, and continues to do so, by saying that he took 2 years to do this, but, on the other hand, Opposition members say that we should not have knee-jerk reactions—and I agree with that. So what is the process for one who was a member of the ministerial drug council committee? Mr Anderton, quite logically, went and got medical practitioners and scientists. Those people are not the sort of bush doctor or witch doctor we had talking from the ACT party, but medical practitioners and scientists. He instructed them to go away and examine the level of danger this substance may or may not cause. I would have thought that was a logical thing to do. Then the scientists and the practising medical folk came back to advise Mr Anderton on an appropriate course of action.

I would have thought that was a logical thing to do. That takes time, because one should exhaustively test. It is true that we should not ban everything that is different; we should get rid of only those things that are harmful and we should manage around that situation. I say to Jacqui Dean that it was a nice cheap shot on the waka, a nice little political statement, but it does not hold water in logic.

In Papanui a shop called Jordy’s opened with a wonderful combination special, where for cheap rates people could buy party pills, samurai swords, and BB guns, if they bought them all at once. What a cracker that was. It was right next door to my electorate office in Papanui. I am pleased to say that whoever owned Jordy’s saw the writing on the wall, packed up, and left.

I hope that Mr Terry Brown, that bastion of moral fortitude who lives in Kaiapoi and has some association with the Herbal Heaven shop there, will go and sell shoes, tennis racquets, or some legal thing to make his money. I hope that he will shut his shop or change his product. For him, the writing is on the wall; it is game over.

I think today that we have listened as a Parliament to our communities, both as local members and as a collective Parliament. We have listened and we have responded logically. We have the scientific evidence, we have done the testing, and we have a plan in place not only to have this substance removed from the market but also, quite logically, to take off the market other similar substances that are there purely to make money. Let us be clear about it. Making money is the only reason for doing it. It is not to prevent harm or to stop people going on to harder drugs—how silly is that? The science has disproved it; those substances are there to make money. Future-proofing is also proposed, so that the manufacturers will have to prove that their products are safe before they are legalised.

For once, I think that the people who gathered in the Kaiapoi High School hall and in people’s homes, and the mothers and fathers who were very concerned about this, have finally had a bit of a victory today. Maybe those with the live and let live attitude where anything goes—those who wave the white flag of surrender and say: “Because we cannot get a handle on it, let us forget about it and have the law of the jungle.”—have had a loss today. I am gratified by that. I support this legislation. It is a great day for the battlers in our community.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) : The National Party is supporting the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill. The bill seeks to change the classification of benzylpiperazine (BZP) from a class D to a class C1 drug, and also seeks to provide a 6-month amnesty for the drug.

The bill has been a long time coming, and I congratulate my colleague Jacqui Dean on keeping the pressure on. It is great that this bill will finally be passed today. BZP has already been banned in the United States, Japan, Australia, Denmark, and Sweden. In March 2007 the UK regulator warned that selling pills that contain BZP was illegal and that people should not take these pills as there were considerable health risks. The World Anti-Doping Agency has banned BZP in competitive sport. With the passage of this bill today we are simply getting into step with the rest of the world.

I was part of the Health Committee that heard the various submissions from the public. There were 52 submissions, 16 of which were oral submissions. They came from a whole variety of groups, ranging from party pill manufacturers and the party pill industry to researchers, community groups, individuals, and our own National MP Jacqui Dean. Fourteen submissions supported the bill and 38 were opposed.

The Health Committee placed a lot of weight on the evidence of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs, which assessed BZP in 2004 and 2006. In 2004 it recommended that BZP should be regulated, but in 2006 the committee reviewed further information and felt that the new studies confirmed that, in fact, BZP had caused potentially fatal seizures. The committee classed it as causing moderate harm and recommended the change of classification to C1. The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs again reassessed BZP in May last year and reaffirmed its position that it should be a class C1 drug.

The Health Committee heard three petitions in conjunction with the bill: two were in support of the bill—one from my own colleague Jacqui Dean—and the third one was against it. The committee heard many, many arguments that the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs had not assessed BZP thoroughly or that it had not defined what constitutes a moderate risk, and so forth. But we were reassured that this was not the case; in fact, the deliberations of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs were very thorough. There were concerns regarding the robustness of the research that was presented to the Health Committee, but we were reassured again that the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs had looked at this extensively and the assessment was thorough and not biased at all.

There was a lot of concern over public implications of BZP. Opponents took the opportunity to cite alcohol and cigarettes as a comparison, and they have been used as examples today. A number cited concerns that prohibition would drive the industry underground and gangs would flourish, and argued that the use of BZP reduced the demand for dangerous drugs like P and the use of alcohol. In the first reading of the bill my colleague Jacqui Dean elaborated on the social consequences of BZP continuing to be sold legally in New Zealand. She quite rightly pointed out that the regulation of BZP has not decreased the use of drugs like P, as evidenced by the increase in the number of P laboratory busts that have occurred recently.

There is clear evidence that BZP is a gateway drug. BZP pills are very colourful-looking pills designed to attract youth and, indeed, they have a certain appeal to younger children. At the end of the day we do not know what the downstream effects of these party pills are; they are very new, and I say to members that we should be taking a responsible stance in the face of uncertainty in order to protect our youth and our children in the future. The argument was used in the Health Committee that alcohol and tobacco are far more dangerous and should be illegal. But the fact is that both those products have been around for hundreds and hundreds of years, and both are controlled by their own legislative frameworks. I cannot help but go back to my earlier comments that the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs assessed BZP, not once, not twice, but three times, very thoroughly and very carefully, and it has reaffirmed its position, not once but twice, that BZP should be a class C1 drug and that it causes moderate harm. Members of the advisory committee are experts and it would be a very silly Ministry of Health or Minister who ignored their advice.

I would like to acknowledge Paul Hutchison, who attempted to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper that proposed that the legislation should be reviewed in 2 years and 6 months’ time. That seemed a very sensible Supplementary Order Paper and it is regrettable that it was not accepted at the time. The National Party listened to all the arguments and we listened to my colleague Jacqui Dean, who has been passionate about this issue since she became an MP. We support the arguments and we support the passage of this bill. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.